Comments on: The Irony: Reuters Slams Wikipedia's Credibility, Issues Own Correction http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/ Welcome to my lifestream Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:58:08 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Candice Brown http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Candice Brown Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:38:49 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-32 Wikipedia is nothing more than a big clique. Sorry, no one is impressed by that. Wikipedia is nothing more than a big clique. Sorry, no one is impressed by that.

]]> By: eric http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-31 eric Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:18:48 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-31 the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/ the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/

]]> By: eric http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-30 eric Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:47:55 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-30 :) :)

]]> By: James M http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-29 James M Mon, 01 Jan 2007 02:41:33 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-29 Being a writer on wikipedia I can atest to the fact that this site is one of the single best resources on the internet. I am amazed how quickly this site has become a tool for millions of visitors every day. It is breathtaking. I live close to the St Petersburg Florida originator of Wiki and am proud to be a part of the team. Atleast a contributor. Happy New Year folks! Being a writer on wikipedia I can atest to the fact that this site is one of the single best resources on the internet. I am amazed how quickly this site has become a tool for millions of visitors every day. It is breathtaking.

I live close to the St Petersburg Florida originator of Wiki and am proud to be a part of the team. Atleast a contributor.

Happy New Year folks!

]]> By: Charlie http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Charlie Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:36:05 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-28 So I want to know does any body else use wikipedia and what for? what was the most informatibve artical you found there? What was the wierdest one you found? I use wikipedia mostly durring my lunch time at work to just read up on stuff. the most informative artical I found was on the mineing and refineing process for copper (because I learned about the job I have, and got to show off to co-workers ;p) the most interesting was probably on cheese witch I actualy e-mailed to my self so I could finish reading it after work. oh well, got wiki? So I want to know does any body else use wikipedia and what for?
what was the most informatibve artical you found there?
What was the wierdest one you found?
I use wikipedia mostly durring my lunch time at work to just read up on stuff. the most informative artical I found was on the mineing and refineing
process for copper (because I learned about the job I have, and got to show off to co-workers ;p) the most interesting was probably on cheese witch I
actualy e-mailed to my self so I could finish reading it after work.
oh well, got wiki?

]]> By: Don Lapre Is Cool http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Don Lapre Is Cool Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:36:08 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-27 Don't understand the problem...Each is still just an current events site with historical data that couldn't be used for any kind of academic purposes so it is still a laymens site. Neither can be used for any creditable references. Bob Don Lapre Is Cool bob@dec50th.com Don't understand the problem…Each is still just an current events site with historical data that couldn't be used for any kind of academic purposes so it is still a laymens site. Neither can be used for any creditable references.

Bob
Don Lapre Is Cool
bob@dec50th.com

]]> By: Bill Gates » SpiralFrog in music download deal with EMI Music (Reuters) http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-26 Bill Gates » SpiralFrog in music download deal with EMI Music (Reuters) Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:04:22 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-26 [...] Maybe this might confuse you Reuters - SpiralFrog, a new online music service, said on Wednesday it had signed an agreement with EMI Music Publishing to authorize SpiralFrog’s use of EMI’s music catalog for legal downloading in the United States via SpiralFrog’s advertising-supported service. Maybe this might help irony: Reuters Article Slamming Wikipedia For Corrections… Needs Correcting There are a group of folks who just love to criticize Wikipedia — usually because they want it to be something it’s not. As long as people understand the methodology in creating Wikipedia entries, there’s really no issue at all. That’s why it seemed so bizarre last week, after reports of Ken Lay’s death showed up, that Reuters ran what was a pretty useless article about how Ken Lay’s Wikipedia changed rapidly after reports of his death came out — and some of those changes were somewhat different than the eventual story that came out. There’s nothing particularly newsworthy there. Like any breaking story, some of the details may get confused at the beginning, but as the details become clearer the story gets crafted. Plenty of mainstream news stories have experienced the same exact thing. In fact… it happened in this very Reuters article. Slashdot points to someone who noticed the irony over the fact that Reuters needed to issue its very own correction on the story after it got its sources confused. What’s even more ironic is, of course, that there are still plenty of versions of the uncorrected Reuters piece out there, but over at Wikipedia you can easily look back at the history yourself and see the corrections. So, where’s Reuters breathless article on how Reuters’ mistake “underscores the challenges” facing a news agency like Reuters “which as the news was breaking offered a variety of [sources] for [its story]”?.Did you know that Article means a particular part or subject; a specific matter or point. This will be worth your time giant PC Chip Merger: AMD Buys ATI (NewsFactor) NewsFactor - In a move that could impact the kinds of choices available to home and business PC users, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) announced yesterday that it was buying video chip maker, ATI, for $5.4 billion.Did you know that Giant means one that has no substance or importance; a nonentity: “A nothing is a dreadful thing to hold onto” (Edna O’Brien). This is also worth to check out [...] [...] Maybe this might confuse you Reuters – SpiralFrog, a new online music service, said on Wednesday it had signed an agreement with EMI Music Publishing to authorize SpiralFrog's use of EMI's music catalog for legal downloading in the United States via SpiralFrog's advertising-supported service. Maybe this might help irony: Reuters Article Slamming Wikipedia For Corrections… Needs Correcting There are a group of folks who just love to criticize Wikipedia — usually because they want it to be something it's not. As long as people understand the methodology in creating Wikipedia entries, there's really no issue at all. That's why it seemed so bizarre last week, after reports of Ken Lay's death showed up, that Reuters ran what was a pretty useless article about how Ken Lay's Wikipedia changed rapidly after reports of his death came out — and some of those changes were somewhat different than the eventual story that came out. There's nothing particularly newsworthy there. Like any breaking story, some of the details may get confused at the beginning, but as the details become clearer the story gets crafted. Plenty of mainstream news stories have experienced the same exact thing. In fact… it happened in this very Reuters article. Slashdot points to someone who noticed the irony over the fact that Reuters needed to issue its very own correction on the story after it got its sources confused. What's even more ironic is, of course, that there are still plenty of versions of the uncorrected Reuters piece out there, but over at Wikipedia you can easily look back at the history yourself and see the corrections. So, where's Reuters breathless article on how Reuters' mistake "underscores the challenges" facing a news agency like Reuters "which as the news was breaking offered a variety of [sources] for [its story]"?.Did you know that Article means a particular part or subject; a specific matter or point. This will be worth your time giant PC Chip Merger: AMD Buys ATI (NewsFactor) NewsFactor – In a move that could impact the kinds of choices available to home and business PC users, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) announced yesterday that it was buying video chip maker, ATI, for $5.4 billion.Did you know that Giant means one that has no substance or importance; a nonentity: "A nothing is a dreadful thing to hold onto" (Edna O'Brien). This is also worth to check out [...]

]]> By: digital aesthetics» Blog Archive » Irony: Reuters Article Slamming Wikipedia For Corrections… Needs Correcting http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-25 digital aesthetics» Blog Archive » Irony: Reuters Article Slamming Wikipedia For Corrections… Needs Correcting Sun, 16 Jul 2006 05:43:21 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-25 [...] There are a group of folks who just love to criticize Wikipedia — usually because they want it to be something it’s not. As long as people understand the methodology in creating Wikipedia entries, there’s really no issue at all. That’s why it seemed so bizarre last week, after reports of Ken Lay’s death showed up, that Reuters ran what was a pretty useless article about how Ken Lay’s Wikipedia changed rapidly after reports of his death came out — and some of those changes were somewhat different than the eventual story that came out. There’s nothing particularly newsworthy there. Like any breaking story, some of the details may get confused at the beginning, but as the details become clearer the story gets crafted. Plenty of mainstream news stories have experienced the same exact thing. In fact… it happened in this very Reuters article. Slashdot points to someone who noticed the irony over the fact that Reuters needed to issue its very own correction on the story after it got its sources confused. What’s even more ironic is, of course, that there are still plenty of versions of the uncorrected Reuters piece out there, but over at Wikipedia you can easily look back at the history yourself and see the corrections. So, where’s Reuters breathless article on how Reuters’ mistake “underscores the challenges” facing a news agency like Reuters “which as the news was breaking offered a variety of [sources] for [its story]”? [...] [...] There are a group of folks who just love to criticize Wikipedia — usually because they want it to be something it's not. As long as people understand the methodology in creating Wikipedia entries, there's really no issue at all. That's why it seemed so bizarre last week, after reports of Ken Lay's death showed up, that Reuters ran what was a pretty useless article about how Ken Lay's Wikipedia changed rapidly after reports of his death came out — and some of those changes were somewhat different than the eventual story that came out. There's nothing particularly newsworthy there. Like any breaking story, some of the details may get confused at the beginning, but as the details become clearer the story gets crafted. Plenty of mainstream news stories have experienced the same exact thing. In fact… it happened in this very Reuters article. Slashdot points to someone who noticed the irony over the fact that Reuters needed to issue its very own correction on the story after it got its sources confused. What's even more ironic is, of course, that there are still plenty of versions of the uncorrected Reuters piece out there, but over at Wikipedia you can easily look back at the history yourself and see the corrections. So, where's Reuters breathless article on how Reuters' mistake "underscores the challenges" facing a news agency like Reuters "which as the news was breaking offered a variety of [sources] for [its story]"? [...]

]]> By: Kyle http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Kyle Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:16:33 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-24 Does anyone know what the Encyclopedia Britanica article on Ken Lay says? How many minutes did it take before they updated all of their encyclopedias to reflect his death? Does anyone know what the Encyclopedia Britanica article on Ken Lay says? How many minutes did it take before they updated all of their encyclopedias to reflect his death?

]]> By: MrCopilot http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/comment-page-1/#comment-23 MrCopilot Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:37:49 +0000 http://s34902.gridserver.com/?p=33#comment-23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

]]>