Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source 2004

Will Wikipedia ever become an actual media source? I, Sennheiser, will now take the opportunity to reserve one of the press badges Wikipedia might get for the White House or the Pentagon. ;) Sennheiser! 23:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Animal attacks: 25 thoughts..." (OC Weekly, United States, February 13) "Indeed, according to a list of extinct animals on the web encyclopedia Wikipedia, the only North American animals unable to adapt since 1900..."

Interestingly, I think this is an example of the author misusing a Wikipedia list (not necessarily willfully). The author assumes (or claims that) the Wikipedia list is exhaustive, but Wikipedia would never claim that. DanKeshet 00:28, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

For those who don't know the fact that the Daily Telegraph is linking to us on a regular basis is very impressive. It is one of the 4 major UK national weekday newspapers. Secretlondon 21:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reverse Order

Reverted back to reverse order. I know things on wikipedia happen top down, but in terms of news, there is nothing stupider than having to scroll down pages and pages and pages to see the NEWest item. This way just makes logical sense. jengod 18:21, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

That logical argument applies equally to all other similar pages (vfd, vp, etc..) ... ideally they would all change too but I think the current way is too entrenched. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here are some non-english news articles which sourced/mention wikipedia that people might want to do something with,

WOAI-TV: "The religion website Wikipedia.org says ..."

Thanks, I needed the laugh. Reminded me of first-time visitors emailing Jimbo to request further information on a topic after reading the wikipedia article on it. Arvindn 18:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)