Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2004

message: Err.. Just a point, but yes, the Mesopotamian plain is known as the Fertile Cresent. The cresent of rivers, you see - Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.186.50 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 April 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesopotamian plain 

message: :Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump
I've seen people mentioning academic studies (conference presentations/ journal papers) of Wikipedia. Is there a page which lists all of them (known to us?)? Tomos 00:26 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: I don't know if someone has started a list yet, but here are some starting points: I did an English presentation at the  Open Cultures conference in Vienna (which also covered Slashdot and Kuro5hin), and also one on July 1 at the Merz-Akademie (exclusively about Wikipedia). There appears to be no video online for the latter one, even though it was filmed. I also wrote a four-part-series for the German netzine Telepolis about Wikipedia.   Lars Aronsson's Operation of a Large Scale, General Purpose Wiki Website may also be of interest.—Eloquence 00:39 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: I think it'd very informative (to non-Wikipedians) and fun (to Wikipedians) to see a list of formal or semi-formal oral presentations (academic or not) in which Wikipedia is mentioned (hopefully more than a sentence.) --Menchi 02:41 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks! I tentatively created a list of references on my user page so that others can look or add. Tomos 01:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentations on WP 

message: ' Wikipedia on TV '
Wikipedia on Free-to-air TV for the first time, maybe. Australian Endemol-produced gameshow 'Deal Or No Deal' on channel 7 cites 'Wikipedia' as a source, including a link to the website. I'll have more info if anybody asks. This could be the first time Wikipedia has, while not been featured, but cited or for that matter mentioned on free-to-air TV anywhere.
Just a short note to let you know that I mentioned Wikipedia in a recent article on CMS for the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan. The piece is available here in PDF format. Keep up the good work! --Laszlo 11:59, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia in the Media

message: Just remembered. There was a link to wikipedia in the article "Chain Letters and Evolutionary History" in the June issue of Scientific American. The exact quote is: "Kolmogorov complexity is discussed at www.wikipedia.org/wiki/kolmogorov_complexity".  :)
I couldn't find this on their site so it might just be in the printed version.
This should off course be mentioned somewhere but I can't figure out where to put it on the press coverage page.  -- Jniemenmaa 10:22, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia in Scientific American

message: Hi, where do we put articles like this (found by MAv):
* IBM History Flow: Technical experiment on "visualizing dynamic, evolving documents and the interactions of multiple collaborating authors." Uses various Wikipedia articles as example data.
Thanks for help, Fantasy 08:24, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we put Wikipedia as source for scientific work?

message: ...will need to be added. I found four of them: Spiegel, de Politiken, da — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sverdrup (talk • contribs) 05:53, 26 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Articles the Press release resulted in 

message: The link to
Need To Do Research? Go Further Than Google (http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech01.asp?v=6/5) Investors.com, June 7, 2004. "One increasingly popular online tool is wikipedia.org, a collaborative encyclopedia that lets any user edit an entry."
seems to be to an article that doesn't mention Wikipedia.  --Fritzlein 06:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the article shifted its URL, since even the title doesn't match. --Menchi 08:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link? 

message: The section "Veni, Vidi ...Wiki?" which points to this yahoo link gives a "Page not found". Does anyone know where the page has moved to. Else we'll have to keep the text but remove the link. Jay 03:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing link

message: Somebody reversed the listed items (incompletely, because they only reversed months and not dates) to be in reverse chronological order, apparently to make it more consistent with Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source. Besides the fact that it was not actually made consistent, I question whether consistency is necessary, and furthermore whether the chosen order is in fact the better one. For that matter, if you look at the archives from previous years, they are in chronological order, so there's another consistency issue. When the content on this page moves to archive, as it will in only a few weeks, I rather think that straight chronological order will be more useful in that context than reverse. --Michael Snow 06:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page order