Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-07-11/London bombings article

message: According to PR Newswire, "Wikipedia, a collaborative online encyclopedia maintained and updated by volunteer contributors, ranked third among most-shared links at BlogPulse.com, while Yahoo's FlickR "Image Pool," which allowed users to post photos of the bombing scenes, ranked No. 11."  (BlogPulse.com has identified more than 13.5 million blogs for daily analysis of key issues, trends and personalities.)
More links: 
*Newsweek - History's New First Draft "But perhaps the biggest story on Thursday was Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that Internet users around the world freely add to and edit. Yesterday’s entry on the London bombings was amended, edited and updated by hundreds of readers no fewer than 2,800 times throughout the day. “It’s very different than what you get on CNN,” explains Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. “You get background. On TV you see images of blown-up buses, but you don’t have information on the different tube stops.” The entry has photographs, detailed timelines, contact numbers, a complete translated statement by the jihadist group claiming responsibility for the attacks and links to other Wikipedia entries offering context on everything from the London Underground to British Summer Time."
*CNET story 
*PC Magazine
*Guardian unlimited
*Indymedia links to our coverage (along with many others)
*Boing Boing "Here is a highly informative Wikipedia "current event" page, which includes links to news sources, blogs, a timeline of events, and translation of the claim for responsibility posted on the Jihadist website Al-Qal'ah..."
More blogs:
(Take your pick)
*Londinist "Very useful Wikipedia page"
*Dan Olsen's Weblog "We are now just over 24 hours since the devastating bombings in London and there is already an article on Wikipedia about the bombings. It is amazing how the internet has become a real time source of information."
*Nik Cubrilovic Weblog "7 July 2005 London bombings from Wikipedia is another great source of news and information about the event. It is amazing how quickly a page detailing every aspect of the attack forms together on Wikipedia - they have more information than any of the major news providers."
*O'Reilly Radar (Marc) "I found much better information about today's terrorist attacks in London by looking at the Wikipedia news page and the Flickr photo group than I did by looking at The New York Times and watching CNN."
*michael parekh on IT "Within minutes, I learned several things that I did not get after almost an hour of watching the news through the TV news channels, and the web-sites of traditional media outlets."
*Digg blog - just a link, but interesting exchange in comments section
*Tasty Popsicle "a true testament of the power of independant yet collective jounalism."
*Gadgetopia "The Wikipedia article on today’s bombings in London is already huge. The bit at the top with the hotline numbers is just evidence of how much of a fantastic resource Wikipedia has become."  -- and from the comments on that page: "Xeni Jardin is on CNN right now talking about this exact page. She says it’s been updated 2,800 times.  To CNN’s credit, they have run stories today about how bloggers have covered this event better than mainstream news."
*Rhodarian - library news blog "The power of Wikipedia for documenting current news event is evident in 2005 London bombings. Resources, information and links to news sources are included. I discovered this link to Wikipedia via the NY Times International News, which to my mind gives some indication of the authority this particular entry carries."
*SFGate.com Culture Blog "I don't know why, but I find it strange that Wikipedia already has an extensive entry on today's London bombings. Doesn't it take more than a few hours for something like a terrorist attack to become history? Not that the entry is in any way offensive; it's thorough and respectful and still a work-in-progress. It's just the notion of an "encyclopedia" article being written on the same day as the event -- no time for the past."
*InsideGoogle blog "Flickr tags ImagePool and already a page on Wikipedia. That’s fast. Usually historic events needs to be ‘closed’ before they end up in the history records. Talking about an accurate encyclopedia…"
*Reason Online Hit and Run blog - For Breaking News, Turn to the Encyclopedia "The most thorough coverage I've seen of the London attacks is in Wikipedia, of all places." 
*Dina Mehta "Meanwhile, Wikipedia has outdone itself again with some really great collaborative action!"
*Notes from a Teacher "Among those providing strong, strong coverage of the horrific bombings in London:  Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia, which is out-doing Wikinews, as it brings together dozens of different threads of the story."
And couldn't resist sharing this:
Underground shirts
— Catherine\talk 21:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: The Scotsman seems to be highly critical of anything that may potentially threaten it or the opinions of its owners, the Barclay Brothers. For "Scotland's National Newspaper" it is the most anti-scottish thing I've ever had the misfortune to read. Having said that, most newspapers have a bias in one direction or another. Maybe I'm just sick of The Scotsman being so damned negative about everything. --Colin Angus Mackay 21:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be careful of the Scotsman