Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia in the media

Merge
Any objections to just merging this page with Category:Wikipedia in the media? The category tree will have a more up-to-date listing of subtopics, and there's not much here more than that. -- Beland 01:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, actually. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ordering
The page and the infobox are both ordered fairly haphazardly? I'll alphabetize both. revert/fix/comment if there was a rationale behind the ordering. :) -Quiddity 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of ordering, there's a lot of inconsistency in how entries are ordered in the various subpages; some are done last-entry-first and others last-entry-last. Shouldn't this be more consistent? *Dan T.* 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking to other "Wikipedia in" topics
Can anyone think of a way to tie this and related articles more closely with articles like Wikipedia in popular culture? That article is in Category:Wikipedia and this article is a few levels below Category:Wikipedia publicity. Some of these articles are still in the article namespace, rather than the Wikipedia namespace. Different reasons for collecting the examples and writing something about them are the reasons behind this, but the distribution of this sort of material across two namespaces makes it hard to collect it all together. Any suggestions? Carcharoth 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does one include "Wikipedia on Apple.com?"
In case anyone has mentioned it, check out the Apple iPhone demonstration for Internet browsing at http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/ - at the very end, the Wikipedia article for iPod is pulled up for display. --JohnDBuell 19:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Should have said has NOT mentioned it...it has been noted on the iPhone article talk page) --JohnDBuell 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge
There is a proposal to merge List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia into this page (or one of the relevant pages linked from here). The first stage would seem to be to decide which pages are most suitable for the material, and then to add a courtesy note on the talk page of that page. Looking at the material to be merged, I suggest all the examples belong in pages under 'Wikipedia as a topic', rather than 'Wikipedia as a source'. Carcharoth 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The final comment on the MfD by JzG gave me this thought. We could create sections like Vandalism encouraged by media and Vandalism encouraged by teachers (for instances when the media reports on this) which could stand alone on some of the pages being merged to, since it is often not the media people themselves that are doing most of the vandalism, but rather their viewers/readers. NoSeptember  13:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a recent "professor encouraging vandalism to teach his students why Wikipedia is bad" case at WP:AN, wasn't there? Carcharoth 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There were several in recent months, which is why I mentioned it, but if not reported on by the media it wouldn't be listed. Once we get newsworthy enough, there will probably be media types that monitor AN and ANI just for some juicy stories though :-P. NoSeptember  13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's not suitable. Needs to have been reported by a reliable source, not based on internal Wikipedia evidence. And that case is not suitable for publication, as it involves personal correspondence. But yes, NoSeptember's idea is a good one. Preserves some of the intent of the original page, while toning down the "they vandalized Wikipedia!" tones of shock-horror. Carcharoth 13:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'd like to know, is how this makes things any different to having an article devoted to vandalism by the media? The argument was that we should merge it so we don't encourage vandalism. However, there will still be a distinctive section where media people can (presumably) brag about their vandalism. This really doesn't make any sense. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The title is less provocative in NoSeptember's proposal. It still uses the word vandalism, but shifts the emphasis from celebrity to viewer. Carcharoth 13:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh? then why can't we just rename the article "Vandalism encouraged by the media"? Again, how would this be any different? As for it emphasising the viewer, I don't follow. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm closing this merge proposal and removing the tag. Not enough input. Alternative proposal at Wikipedia talk:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. Carcharoth 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New entry
Keith Olberman (and the quest) on Wikipedia (scanner). I have no idea when this aired so I cannot add it.--Svetovid 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between source and topic
There seems to be a lot of confusion between "Wikipedia as a source" and "Wikipedia as a topic". I've just added an entry to Wikipedia as a press source 2008 which genuinely uses Wikipedia as a source, but several of the other entries there are in fact about Wikipedia as a topic, e.g. describing people finding inaccuracies in their entries, or describing people adding things to Wikipedia. Perhaps the distinction needs to be made clearer and emphasised more than it is? And is it OK to move entries from source to topic pages (or vice-versa) if you think they're in the wrong place? I'm tempted, but unless this is explicitly mentioned as a possibility I'm worried it could get controversial. (It could also mess up links from article Talk pages I guess.) Also the instructions on that page could be clearer, in particular the "Formatting" section, e.g. the terms "article" and "source" are ambiguous in this context. That could be why so few of the entries are formatted in this way. And some guidance is needed about whether or not to sign entries (I see no reason for doing so myself but it seems to be common). Qwfp (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikilove?
out of curiosity, how an article linked by "Wikilove" or Heaps of Praise not violate NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saganatsu (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing books for the Wikipedia Signpost
The Signpost is seeking more reviewers for a range of upcoming and recent books related to Wikipedia. Sign up at the review desk.--ragesoss (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarized material
Are we tracking instances of text being copied from Wikipedia and presented under reporters' bylines? It's not quite the same thing as being cited, but it's close.  Will Beback   talk    23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Need pages for 2010
I wanted to note this (specifically "According to research on forced landings" paragraph) but Wikipedia as a press source 2010 does not exist. I did add a template to Talk:Emergency landing]]. Jason McHuff (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So why not just go ahead and create it? Just use Wikipedia as a press source 2009 as a template to start it off.. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Major talk show host fooled by Wikipedia hoax

 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-w_n_719436.html is linked to by the main page of Google news, telling how Rush Limbaugh fell for an Wikipedia hoax, reporting information he read at an article for this judge about him killing bears and mounting their heads above the entrance to the courthouse to instill the fear of God in people.  D r e a m Focus  07:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page template for Wikipedia as a press source
Please see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Image use?
Is there a place to keep track of images used by the media? For example, the New Yorker is using using File:Keith Waldrop.jpg.

I vaguely recall that there was a template one could add to images in such cases. Does anyone know what it is?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect
WP:ITM is now a shortcut to here. Just letting you guys know, qwerty6811 :-) Chat Yell Ping me 18:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)