Talk:Several US universities ban Wikipedia as primary source

content is nice instead of sensationalism. We don't do well with the latter. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see now:

1. The main page says to write a headline if you don't have more time.
2. How do you propose content for a story that hadn't aired yet?
3. If it's a quote, how is that sensationalized? Did YOU know that UCLA has banned Wikipedia as a primary source in paper writing? (Btw, not sure, but I vaguely had the impression that NBC's teaser used "war on...", but that would have been sensationalistic.)

In fairness to me, perhaps you would like to edit your comment? Milo 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... You post a sensationalist headline with zero content and you're complaining about my comment. No, I wouldn't like to edit it. However, I'll defer saying anything else until there is content in the article. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How to propose an article

This is a guideline for proposing an article. Go here. It addresses most, if not all of your concerns. --SVTCobra 00:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoted from User talk:SVTCobra:

"This is a guideline for proposing an article. ...--SVTCobra" I did see that page, and quickly determined that I did not have time to propose an article. I was getting ready to depart when I saw on the main page an alternative as follows:

"Start a new article ... To report on a news event, check if it is already being covered. If not, write a quick brief or enter a good headline below to start a full article."

I entered the headline as it says. Now, if that's wrong, and just entering a headline isn't welcome, then the main page needs to be clarified to reflect actual policy. Quoted timestamp: Milo 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoted from User talk:Milomedes:

"No, you didn't do anything wrong. ...--SVTCobra"

Thanks, glad to hear it. Milo 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request: Please don't there is a story here

Criteria for deletion is definitely met, but I wish it could be saved. I have neither the time nor energy. --SVTCobra 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind, I'm removed the tags, and I'll clean up the article.  Thunderhead  ►  01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Better?  Thunderhead  ►  02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thunder. Time will tell if User:Milomedes is happy. I added some sources but they are not 100% on target for this story. Oh, and I added some Cats. --SVTCobra 02:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Telling Wikipedia's side of the story

SVTCobra, thank you for considering my opinion. (Btw, editors here may think that I should do the story things I suggest below, but I have a real job that I must do.)

The story seems to cover the bare facts, yet the big picture and media coverage issues are missing.

I notice that the word "vandalism" is attributed to Prof. Neil Walters. This word wasn't mentioned on NBC, and should have been, along with Wikipedia's counter vandalism efforts. As a reader I'm also interested in exactly what fact about Japanese history was wrong in all the student papers. A sidebar story would be for someone to track down how that wrong fact got into that history article, and how long it remained there.

Lisa Daniels committed a Wikipedia vandalism of her own bio on air in the NBC video, but made no mention of how soon she was reverted, or that Wikipedia counter vandalism reversion even existed. Can anyone check to see how soon she was reverted?

I think NBC's slant should be further reviewed for distortions. I don't have equipment to view the Lisa Daniels NBC video, but I suggest that someone who does should transcribe that video and post it here.

The big picture is that uncorrected, distorted press matters a lot to Wikimedia fund raising efforts. The post below concerning "Everybody hates Wikipedia" misses the point. If an organization ignores bad press about itself, then bad press is what the public will believe.

I think Wikinews can and should "own" this story (which refers to becoming the prime source of coverage for other reporters and commentators). Few others can or will cover it fairly and completely. This is also a rare opportunity for original reporting of Wikipedia policy, statistics, and interviews, in which anyone here can participate. Milo 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone hates wikipedia

Seriously I think that we've covered the everybody hates wikipedia enough. Lots of places ban wikipedia as a source. China bans them outright. Every second day I hear about how inacurate wikipedia is, how its users lie (sorry Essjay), about how it was vandalized... What is the new developments here that is different from previous wikipedia is evil and will lie to you. Enoughs is enough already. Its not like we're doing something really intreasting here like interviewing Jimbo or something. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is nobody should be citing Wikipedia beyond high school. It should be treated as a starting point for research, giving background and links to sources that can be cited. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! I use Wikipedia but never cite it as a source. I cite the references Wikipedia gives at the bottom of every page.--70.158.160.6 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (Viridis on Wikipedia).