Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2021-01-31/In focus

794:

considered too academic for mainstream media are now finding their place in the public discourse through coverage of Knowledge. For example, reports about Strickland's lack of a Knowledge article helped make accessible the feminist theory regarding knowledge being "gendered". The idea that history is his-story was highlighted in debates about Knowledge's gender bias, with the dire lack of articles about women scientists being easily explained by the lack of historical sources regarding women. Meanwhile, reports about Knowledge being blocked in countries such as China and Turkey have allowed for a discussion of the politics of knowledge online as well as a debate regarding the differences between Wikipedias in different languages and local biases. Detailed and critical reports like these are part of a new sub-genre of journalism that has emerged in the past years, what we term "wiki journalism": Coverage of Knowledge as a social and political arena in its own right.

807:, which urges journalists to help increase Knowledge literacy, dedicating more coverage to the project's inner workings and policies. But the media is not alone and the WMF as well as Wikipedians can also help. In recent years, the Wikimedia Foundation has taken the helpful step of hiring communications specialists and other employees to help members of the press connect with sources both at the Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement. Yet although the Wikimedia Foundation has made press contacts much more accessible, there is still work to be done to enhance communication between Knowledge and the media. Creating a special status for wiki journalists, for example, recognizing their users and granting them read-only status for deleted articles and censored edits – a right currently reserved for official administrators – could help reporters better understand the full context of edit wars and other content disputes. 103: 798:

obstacle for would-be editors and journalists alike. Despite its open format, the majority of Knowledge is edited by a fraction of its overall editors, indicating the rise of an encyclopedic elite not too dissimilar in characteristics than that of media and academia. To increase diversity in Knowledge and serve the public interest requires journalists to go beyond "gotcha" headlines. Much of the popular coverage of Knowledge is still lacking and is either reductive or superficial, treating Knowledge as a unified voice and amplifying minor errors and vandalism. Many times, reports like these needlessly politicize Knowledge. For example, after a vandal wrote that the Republican Party of California believed in "Nazism" and the error was aggregated by Alexa and Google, reports attributed blame to Knowledge.

711:

election in 2016, the mainstream press expressed concerns about whether traditional notions of truth and reality-based argument. This resulted in large part from what seemed to be an official assault by the administration in the White House – both against the media itself and facts, and its offering alternative outlets for communication and "alternative facts" in their stead. The "truthiness" culture of intellectual promiscuity represented by the Presidency of George W. Bush had deteriorated into the so-called "post-truth" culture of the Trump White House. Knowledge's procedural answers for the question of what is a fact, initially hailed as flawed due to their inherent beholdance to existing sources, could now be taken in a different light.

811:

the media. In some cases, editors who speak with the press are stigmatized. Much like the interviews with editors of WikiProject Medicine's Covid-19 task force showed, working with the media can actually help highlight the important work taking place on the encyclopedia. Knowledge editors must accept that they and their community play a much wider social role than they may perceive – a social role that places the output of their volunteer activity center stage online and also makes them part of the public debate. To help bridge the gap between public discourse and the Wikipedic one, editors need to go beyond the "just fix it yourself" mentality and help increase public oversight of Knowledge.

464:, the online newspaper for the English language Knowledge, was also founded in 2005 to report on events related to Knowledge. Over time the community grew increasingly conscious of its public role and by 2006 an organized index of all media references to Knowledge was set up – first with a list for every year and then, as coverage swelled, one for every month as well. Categories were also created for times when Knowledge was cited as a source of information by mainstream media – a rare reversal of roles that highlighted the mutually affirming relationship between Knowledge and the media that would develop over later periods. 2160:

complicated concept. I "borrow" a few of those words and phrases from time to time - once I've seen them, why settle for second best? Plus I'm always amazed at his relaxed writing style - it's never work to read through the text no matter how much content is in there. As far as Omer - all I need to say is that about February 5 2020, a month before WHO declared that there was a pandemic, Omer wrote a great article on the work Wikipedians were doing to combat COVID disinformation. Talk about a scoop! Dozens of very good papers and journalists repeated the story for several months. A 3rd journalist should be mentioned,

752:

example, Knowledge received significant media attention in 2018 when Donna Strickland won a Nobel Prize in physics and, at the time of her award, did not have a Knowledge page; an earlier entry had been deleted by an editor who found that Strickland lacked sufficient notability, despite the fact her two male co-laureates had pages for the same academic research that earned the three the prestigious award. But note how press coverage of Strickland did not dispute Knowledge's underlying premise of community-led knowledge production. Rather press coverage was continuing the structural critique from the previous phase.

656:, for example, covered Dr. Adrianne Wadewitz's death in 2014, noting that Wadewitz was a "Wikipedian" who had "empower everyday Internet users to be critical of how information is produced on the Internet and move beyond being critical to making it better". The transition from covering Knowledge's accuracy to covering Wikipedians themselves perhaps reflects an increased concern with awareness about the human motivations of the people contributing knowledge online. Many times this took on a humorous tone, like the case of the "ultimate WikiGnome" Bryan Henderson whose main contribution to Knowledge was 2508:: Excellent article, I think this was the only point where I had an immediate negative gut reaction. We have had repeated proposals in the past to allow read-only access to deleted articles, generaly with very good reasons for the requests. Those proposals have always been rejected. Allowing read access would be fine for 99% of deleted articles. However we are acutely aware that a small number of such pages are attack pages filled with defamation, somebody's private personal information, or similar content that could cause real-world harm to real-world people. There is little chance we allow 345:

it's important to highlight how the media's understanding of Knowledge has shifted along with the public's understanding. Initially cast as the symbol of intellectual frivolity in the digital age, Knowledge is now being lauded as the "last bastion of shared reality" in Trump's America. Coverage, we claim, has evolved from bewilderment at the project, to concern and hostility at its model, to acceptance of its merits and disappointment at its shortcomings, and finally to calls to hold it socially accountable and reform it like any other institution.

723:

even the American C.I.A., claims that were parroted out by Sputnik and RT. Breitbart all but declaring war on the online encyclopedia (running no less than 10 negative reports about it in as many months, including headlines like "Knowledge Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures" and "Knowledge Editors Post Fake News on Summary of Mueller Probe"). 2018 also saw the clearest example of Russian intervention in Knowledge, with Russian agent Maria Butina being outed by the community for trying to scrub her own Knowledge page.

781:

as the article about its response to the pandemic both said and showed, was notably reliable due to its emphasis on neutral point of view and verification of sources. Knowledge's Covid-19 task force had relied on the top tier of legacy media – building a list of recommended sources from popular and scientific media – and they vindicated it for their commitment to trusted institutions of authority. By the start of 2021, as the pandemic marked its one year anniversary and Knowledge its 20th, publications across the world were praising it.

2433:. I'd use such a WikiProject extensively, but I'd have no qualms about other journalists using it to. The more good press stories the better, as far as I'm concerned. And then we'll quote the press - it just makes our job easier. BTW, I and likely other Signposters are available for cooperation with the press on most stories, with credit or on background. We do know a bit about covering Knowledge , e,g. the jargon, rules, who's who, diffs, history, how to use the Signpost archives. Any help needed to get this started - just ask. 171: 765:

The press widely covered YouTube's 2018 announcement that it was relying on Knowledge to counteract videos promoting conspiracy theories when there had been no prior notice to the Wikimedia Foundation regarding YouTube's plans. Journalists also wrote – at times critically – about Facebook's plan to give background information from Knowledge about publications to combat "fake news", Google's use of Knowledge content for its knowledge panels, and how smart assistants like Siri and Alexa pull information from the site.

110: 130: 2089:. In so many cases, people attribute malice to what is actually just lack of resources. An error of omission is likely due to inaction rather than conscious "suppression" of information. Poor-quality articles are likely due to lack of eyes on it rather than that the article represents the standards and ideals of the community. If anyone is responsible for the lack of coverage of women on Knowledge then why would it be the editors we have rather than the people who choose not to edit? (Sure, people 790:

model gaining social acceptance as well as the erosion of status of mainstream media and traditional knowledge sources. Comparisons to older encyclopedias have all but disappeared. More common are appeals like Maher's request following the Strickland affair that journalists aid Knowledge in the attempt to reform by publishing more articles about women. This dynamic highlights how Knowledge is now a fixture within our media landscape, increasingly both the source of coverage and the story itself.

1847: 2277:

body of All Truth or a vandalism-ridden 99% false site, and almost never anything even resembling what Knowledge is. "Reductive or superficial" coverage allows the first view to go unchallenged, while the latter is caused by media "amplifying minor errors". If you understand how Knowledge is written, you can evaluate an article's reliability on a case-by-case basis or at least apply some general principles about what our biases are and what our strengths are.

90: 308:

knowledge also requires openness to change, forgiveness for miscommunications and most importantly: good-faith. Good-faith not just towards your fellow Wikipedians, but also those not yet involved in it, or perhaps making their first foray into Knowledge's processes, either as journalists – or as would-be first-time editors (who are sometimes responding to what they view as an encyclopedic injustice revealed by a journalist).

120: 36: 727:

hateful content. But Knowledge has largely dodged these criticisms. Complimentary journalists have noted the site's rare position as a nonprofit in the most visited websites in the world – the only site in the global top ten that is not monetized with advertising or by collecting and selling personal information of users. Journalists have also praised Knowledge's operating model. As Brian Feldman pointed out in a

140: 2048:

yea/nay call from a single person? That feels perhaps a tad imbalanced, or at least there's a case to be made that it is. Not to mention, it creates a prime opportunity for lots of what could look like fairly arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making, when viewed as a whole. (Through no fault of the individuals making those decisions, and no matter how careful and impartial each of them are, or try to be.)

100: 583:

the ideological battle between "deletionists" and "inclusionists". For the first time, coverage of Knowledge was no longer monolithic and the community was permitted diverging opinions by the press. Knowledge was less a unified publisher and more a vital discursive arena. Policy changes were debated in the media, and concerns over Knowledge's "declining user base" were also covered – mostly by

497:. "We're not talking about truth, we're talking about something that seems like truth – the truth we want to exist", Colbert explained. He even urged viewers to take the truth into their own hands and "save" the declining populations of elephants in Africa by changing their numbers on Knowledge, causing its server to crash. The wider point resonated. "It's on Knowledge, so it must be true", 2531:: There are three possible interpretations of that phrase. One: If a page has been deleted, see above. Two: If the content was removed by an ordinary editor, or by an admin making an ordinary edit, then anyone can view it in the Page History accessible by the History link at the top of any page. If someone is unsure how to find and view the edit in History, they can put "{{help me}} 406:, whose 232-year reputation is based upon hiring world-renowned experts and exhaustively reviewing their articles with a staff of more than a hundred editors". The demise of the status of experts would later become a hallmark of coverage of Knowledge (discussed in the next section), but its seeds can be found from the onset: For example, in its first exposé on Knowledge in 2004, 2324:(the link explains how they pay for cute or horrific stories). Checking the Knowledge article likely involved, it wasn't edited very much in the 3 months before the Sun published the story, and the word "stab" never appeared during that time. In short Alexa wasn't quoting Knowledge. Rather if it was Alexa at all (on the video), it was likely quoting a cynical paid-for hoax. 505:

buoyed by the presidency of George W. Bush and the rise to prominence of Fox News – and Knowledge was increasingly cast as providing its underlying intellectual conditions. "Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right," Colbert charged. "Thanks to Knowledge, it's also a fact. bringing democracy to knowledge."

150: 349:

that themes and trends from one period can and often do carry over into others. But the overall progression reveals how the dynamic relationship between Knowledge and the press has changed since its inception, and might provide further insight into how the press and Knowledge will continue to interact with each other in the internet's knowledge ecosystem.

328:. Rather than being an early example of what we may today call "fake news", the report by the tech site was a consciously snarky yet prescient criticism of Knowledge and its reliability as a source for media. Wales was still alive, of course, despite what it had briefly stated on his Knowledge entry, but by attributing his death to English Knowledge, 2418:

part of the job. But in the end, they are PR people and suffer from the same built-in limitations that all PR people have, e.g. they are going to give the official views of the corp. execs every time, they'll try to tone down controversy,they won't give any indication of a debate within the organization (WMF). They shouldn't be expected to do that.

2097:

improvements in accordance with the reviewer feedback—this is why a draft decline is just not comparable with deletion. The reason the notice shows in that old revision even though it was only two months old at the time is because the template looks at the current date whenever you view the page (so it wouldn't have shown that notice at the time). —

635:

knowledge. Media coverage during this period no longer treated Knowledge as an outlier, a fluke, or as an epistemological disaster to be entirely rejected. Rather, the press focused on negotiating with Knowledge as an existing phenomena, addressing concerns shared by some in the community – especially women, predating the GamerGate debate of 2014.

819:

or its purported apathy. Wikipedians must not just allow the media to highlight problems within their community, but proactively flag issues, helping reporters sift through countless debates and find the truly important stories, instead of limiting themselves to internal forums and demanding journalists and the public fix Knowledge themselves.

773:

February 2020, vandalism on coronavirus articles was not something WP and perhaps the world could afford. Luckily, the WikiProject Medicine was prepared. "Our editing community often concentrates on breaking news events such that content rapidly develops. The recent outbreak of novel coronavirus has been no exception," Doc James told

2464:. I found that linking to that deleted page greatly enhanced the Slate article. But what if I hadn't personally known that editor from prior interviews? There are limits to the approach of "just talk to the community" because then the scope of coverage could be limited by who the journalist has reached out to or happens to know. 70: 2241:

Unfortunately, these goals are unachievable under free market economics and populist bourgeois governments, which respectively control the industry and the regulators and lead to an outcome where journalists scramble for clicks and only steer clear of libel, rather than patiently collecting the highest-quality information.

2051:(I also don't completely understand the "not edited in six months" part of that speedy-deletion notice, since the history seems to indicate that the draft had only been created 2 months prior. But maybe that was a later addition to the template, and regardless it's tangential to the decision-making process itself.) -- 675:

of upending the classic print-model of encyclopedias have been accepted by the wider public, which, in turn, is now concerned or even disappointed that despite its promise of liberating the world's knowledge from the shackles of centralization and expertise, it has in fact recreated most of the biases of yesteryear.

291:, among others) have found our articles about Knowledge being quoted as sources on Knowledge's articles. However, this circular relationship between sources and the sourcers, the cited and the citers, is a hallmark of Knowledge and its community's somewhat volatile relationship with popular media over the years. 671:, Noam Cohen quoted a French reporter as saying, "Making fun of Knowledge is so 2007". When Cohen first began covering Knowledge, most people saw Knowledge as a hobby for nerds–but that characterization had by now become passé. The more pressing concern, according to Cohen, was "eeing Knowledge as The Man". 571:

proxy. These included reports that cited the unfounded claim regarding Hillary Clinton being the valedictorian of her class at Wellesley College, an error born from false information introduced to her Knowledge article. The edit wars on Bush's Knowledge page highlighted the online encyclopedia's role in what

476:, for example, claimed that the Seigenthaler "case triggered extensive debate on the Internet over the value and reliability of Knowledge, and more broadly, over the nature of online information". In the next phase, Knowledge's effect on the popular understanding of truth that would be the overriding theme. 143: 2512:

read access to arbitrary deleted pages, even though we support the reason for the request. What I can offer you, is that we often allow a copy to be provided on-request, for specific deleted page(s). An administrator would review the page before supplying a copy via email or by recreating the page in

814:

As Knowledge is fully transparent, the demand for further public oversight may seem misplaced or even anachronistic. However in much the same way we need the media to help oversee public committee hearings in town halls or national legislatures plenums, so too does the public need the media's help in

755:

Furthermore, by this era the Wikimedia Foundation had increasingly begun speaking publicly about matters of concern to the Knowledge community. When it came to the Strickland incident, the Wikimedia Foundation was not overly apologetic in its public statements, with Executive Director Katherine Maher

674:

Overall, press coverage of Knowledge during this period oscillates between fear about the site's long-term existential prospects and concern that the site is continuing the masculinist and Eurocentric biases of historical encyclopedias. The latter is significant, as it shows how Knowledge's pretenses

562:

called "wikipolitics". During this period Knowledge also first faced allegations of having a liberal bias – for example by "evangelical Christians" who opened a conservative wiki of their own. Reports like these helped grant social currency to the claim that knowledge was political like never before.

504:

Colbert followed up his infamous segment with another potent neologism: wikiality. "Wikiality", he charged, was the reality created by Knowledge's model, in which "truth" was based on the will of the majority and not on facts. This was a theme that had a deep political resonance in post-9/11 America,

444:

s "Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head" found Knowledge to be as accurate as its Enlightenment-era competitor, bringing experts to compare randomly selected articles on scientific topics. News that Knowledge successfully passed scientific scrutiny – that its ever-changing content was deemed to be

378:

ran a report called "Free the Encyclopedias!", which described Knowledge as "intellectual anarchy extruded into encyclopedia form" and "a free-wheeling Internet-based encyclopedia whose founders hope will revolutionize the stodgy world of encyclopedias" – then still dominated by the Enlightenment-era

373:

Despite Wales' lofty claims that Knowledge was creating a world in which everyone could have "free access to the sum of all human knowledge", throughout the early 2000s, mainstream media remained skeptical towards Knowledge. Reports from 2002–2003 mostly documented with some surprise its rapid growth

361:

When Knowledge was launched in 2001, mainstream media as well as more technology minded outlets treated it as something between a fluke and quirky outlier. With quotes from co-founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, early coverage tended to focus on what seemed like Knowledge's most novel aspects: how

344:

suggested? Both of us are journalists who have regularly covered Knowledge in recent years, and before that we were frequent consumers of knowledge on the site (like many of our journalist colleagues). Press coverage of Knowledge during the past 20 years has undergone a dramatic shift, and we believe

256:

Knowledge and its complex array of policies and intricate editorial processes are frequently misunderstood by the media. However, these very same processes – which seem convoluted if not impenetrable to outsiders not versed in the nuanced minutiae of Wikipedic culture – are many times the key to its

2425:

Note WP's radical transparency would be very different from usual press contacts. Very little chance of an exclusive. Probably some good debates among users, with some occasional propaganda added. The talk page would be the only place anything would get done - no Knowledge articles to write! - but

2421:

I'll sugest working with both the WMF and independently with the community. That might be in the fotm of a WikiProject. Editors who want to see better coverage by journalists could encourage (and criticize) the press. Wikipedians could develop a reputation among journalist by suggesting good stories

2417:

As noted the WMF PR folks can be very helpful. I use their help on over half of Signpost issues. They are professional and competent. They're probably better than good corporate PR folks, because they recognize that communicating with the community - as well as the press and the public at large - is

2096:

On the other hand, I don't feel articles for deletion is particularly burdensome and it is often a painless and low-drama process. As for the six months question, drafts are deleted only after six months of no edits (unless they're egregious spam or similar), and can be continually resubmitted after

822:

Together, journalists, the Wikimedia Foundation and the community, can help increase critical digital literacy through deeply reported coverage of Knowledge. High-quality wiki journalism would not treat Knowledge as a monolithic agent that speaks in one voice, but rather would seek to understand the

810:

The community must too be more open to working with media and take a much less aggressive approach to external coverage of their debates. Many times, editors are reluctant to speak to reporters and are antagonistic towards unversed users who have come to mend an error or bias they have read about in

793:

Understanding the mutually affirming and dynamic between media and Knowledge opens up a rare opportunity to engage directly with some of the issues underscoring information as well as disinformation – from critical reading of different sources, to basic epistemological debates, issues that were once

764:

The Strickland incident is in some ways an outlier during a time of relatively favorable press coverage of Knowledge. How long will this honeymoon period last? One indication that the pendulum will swing back in a more-critical direction is the coverage of large technology companies using Knowledge.

710:

But this was only the beginning. What caused press coverage of Knowledge to pivot from criticizing the encyclopedia as the Man to casting Knowledge as the web's good cop? Two main external factors seem to have played a key role: U.S. President Donald Trump and the coronavirus pandemic. Since Trump's

582:

Knowledge was now a primary source of knowledge for the information age, and its internal workings mattered to the general public. Coverage shifted in accordance. Reports began to focus on the internal intellectual battles raging within the community of editors: For example, The Guardian wrote about

315:

Though everyone can participate, without proper media oversight there is no realistic way to expect people to find their place within the sprawling Wikipedic world of projects, task forces, associations and even faux-cabals. The following is an attempt to stress the mutually affirming ties Knowledge

282:

published by the MIT Press and edited by Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner this year. The mutually affirming relationship between Knowledge and the media, as exemplified by our CJR story and the role it plays on the Knowledge article, is only the latest in a long line spanning 20 years. Increasingly,

2140:

A great overview of public perception of Knowledge. I can't speak to Harrison, but I've read Omer Benjakob before and they are one of the few journalists who really "get" what we do here. I predict that in the future wiki press coverage will still include stuff about the gender gap, it's a given at

2047:

Well, yeah, exactly. So once an article is successfully created, it can take the bureaucratic equivalent of the Twelve Labors to get it deleted. (Ignoring, for the sake of argument, the Speedy Deletion process.) But that same article's initial creation (or, acceptance into mainspace) can hinge on a

818:

Wikipedians may not perceive themselves to be gatekeepers in the same way lawmakers or congressional aides are, but for those viewing Knowledge from the outside, many times they do actually appear to play just such a role. Lack of public engagement in Knowledge cannot be blamed solely on the public

780:

The project and Doc James would turn into the face of Knowledge's response to the pandemic – so much so that the community would even open a special article on "Knowledge's response to the Covid-19" pandemic – a rare sign of WP's community efforts meeting their own notability guidelines. Knowledge,

772:

Nonetheless, coronavirus proved a pivotal moment, giving Knowledge and its model what seems to be its biggest vindication since Nature 2005. As a key node in the online information ecosphere, and with concerns regarding Covid-19 disinformation causing the WHO to label the pandemic an "infodemic" in

751:

It's important to note that even during this period of relatively favorable press coverage of Knowledge, newspapers still published highly critical articles. But the focus has been on reforming Knowledge's governance policies rather than rejecting its underlying model of crowdsourced knowledge. For

739:

report about Hunter Biden from spreading through its platform, sparking yet again a debate on the limits of free speech online, the dynamic on Knowledge was very different: Instead of censoring the link or trying to prevent its content from being disseminated, Knowledge's editors contextualized its

722:

2018 also saw Knowledge lock horns with some of those considered supportive of Trump and the "post-truth" discourse, including Breitbart and even Russian media. The so-called "Philip Cross affair" saw a British editor face accusation that he was in fact a front for the U.K.'s Ministry of Defense or

714:

Knowledge had also gotten better, but its model had remained the same. What had changed was the internet and our understanding of it. Knowledge's emphasis on neutral point of view, and the community's goal to maintain an objective description of reality, represents an increasingly striking contrast

311:

We as reporters trying to explain Knowledge outwardly have many times been met with apprehension if not suspicion by members of the community, reluctant to air internal grievances publicly, and perhaps even risk facing accusations of off-wiki canvassing. Many times, we as journalists have been told

180:

Media coverage of Knowledge has radically shifted over the past two decades: once cast as an intellectual frivolity, it is now lauded as the "last bastion of shared reality" online. To increase diversity and digital literacy, journalists and the Knowledge community should work together to advance a

2276:

Absolutely. Every time they treat us as static rather than changing, or complete rather than in progress, they actively decrease readers' awareness and ability for critical evaluation of what they are reading. I see people in internet arguments treating Knowledge either (implicitly) as an unerring

2247:

And yet we have no choice in the matter! Big Tech abuse our open license in many instances, like YouTube's PR move of putting links to Knowledge articles beneath (e.g.) neo-Nazi propaganda topics rather than removing them, as if the supporters of such videos don't already view Knowledge as part of

2072:

in my opinion you make the same mistake as a lot of the media coverage around the Strickland decline. We would love nothing more than to have a panel of 10 editors reviewing each draft and working to improve every promising piece of content someone writes in good faith to the point where it can be

726:

The shift toward more positive press treatment of Knowledge also overlaps with a general trend toward negative coverage of for-profit technology sites. In recent years, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube have been chastised in the press for privacy violations, election hacking, and platforming

603:

ran a series of articles on the question "Where Are the Women of Knowledge?" in its opinion pages. These 2011 articles have very different headlines than the paper's coverage of Knowledge in the prior decade. Reporting between roughly the years 2006 to 2009 focused on Knowledge's reliability, with

2478:

I second this idea of a WikiProject (and would appreciate a ping if one is ever made...). Maybe there could be crossover with academics who are interested in studying Knowledge. Sometimes these studies are unethical (e.g. the classic, "introduce vandalism and see how long it lasts") and sometimes

2159:

Sure, you know Harrison, he's the guy who has a piece in Slate about Knowledge (almost) every month explaining Wiki issues to the public mostly from multiple editors' points of view. What I am always amazed at is his ability to find the right words and phrases to explain what I thought was a very

789:

Over the span of nearly two decades, Knowledge went from being heralded as the original fake news, a symbol of all that was wrong with the internet, to being the "grown up" of the web and the best medicine against the scourge of disinformation. This process was predicated on Knowledge's epistemic

760:

titled "Knowledge Mirrors the World's Gender Biases, it Doesn't Cause Them". Maher challenged journalists to write more stories about notable women so that volunteer Wikipedians have sufficient material to source in their attempt to fix the bias. Maher's comments, in other words, advocate further

647:

covered feminist edit-a-thons, annual events to increase and improve Knowledge's content for female, queer, and women's subject, linking contemporary identity politics with the online project's goal of organizing access to the sum of human knowledge. In addition to gender, the press covered other

570:

of America's political and media landscape. It was at this time that the first cases of "citogenesis" – circular and false reporting originating from Knowledge – appeared. These showed how dependent classic media was on Knowledge – and therefore how politically vulnerable and unreliable it was by

369:

wrote in its first piece on Knowledge, titled "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You." Reports like these laid out the basic tenets of English Knowledge, focusing on how collaborative technology and the volunteer community regulated what was termed "authorial anarchy." Many of these reports

348:

We argue that press coverage of Knowledge can be roughly divided into four periods. We have named each period after a major theme: "Authorial Anarchy" (2001–2004/5); "Wikiality" (2005–2008); "Bias" (2011–2017); and "Good Cop" (2018–present). We note upfront that these categories are not rigid and

113: 2539:

ed edits. Oversight (also known as Suppression), is subject to strict limits. It is used for non-public personal information such as phone numbers, potentially libelous information, copyright infringement, hiding usernames which in-themselves make a blatant attack against somebody, or in unusual

2409:

Yet although the Wikimedia Foundation has made press contacts much more accessible, there is still work to be done to enhance communication between Knowledge and the media. Creating a special status for wiki journalists, for example, recognizing their users and granting them read-only status for

2077:

editors whose financial imperatives to get crap accepted would massively outweigh our hobbyist editors' ability to do one of the least-rewarding, highest skillset, most undervalued tasks on the site if we didn't let the few outstanding human beings who consistently work in this area apply strict

768:

Prominent tech critics have questioned whether it is truly appropriate to leverage Knowledge as the "good cop" since the site is maintained by unpaid volunteers, and tech companies are using it for commercial purposes. But from a news perspective, it might not matter so much whether it's fair or

698:

credited Knowledge's top arbitration body, ArbCom, with "keep the peace at internet encyclopedia." Other favorable headlines from 2018 and 2019 included: "There's a Lot Knowledge Can Teach Us About Fighting Disinformation" and "In a Hysterical World, Knowledge is a Ray of Light – and That's the

687:

titled "Conspiracy Videos? Fake News? Enter Knowledge, the 'Good Cop' of the Internet." For more than a decade, Cohen had written about Knowledge in the popular press, but his "Good Cop" piece was perhaps his most complimentary and it signaled a wider change in perception regarding Knowledge. He

663:

A 2014 YouGov study found that around two thirds of British people trust the authors of Knowledge pages to tell the truth, a significantly higher percentage than those who trusted journalists. At the same time, journalists were increasingly open to recognizing how crucial Knowledge had become to

578:

By 2007, Knowledge was among the top ten most popular websites in the world. And though it was a non-profit, it maintained partnerships with corporate juggernauts like Google, whose donations and usage of Knowledge helped it walk among giants, giving it a privileged position on the search engine

2240:

is a huge problem but it's really in the power of journalists, not us, to avert its cause. At the same time, I don't think the individual journalist is my enemy; rather their material conditions are. The solution is journalists being less overworked, better-paid and having more workers' rights.

638:

Press coverage of Knowledge throughout the period of 2011 to roughly 2017 largely focused on the online encyclopedia's structural bias. This coverage also differed markedly from previous years in its detailed treatment of Knowledge's internal editorial and community dynamics. The press coverage

634:

One could argue that this shift – from grappling with underpinnings of Knowledge's model of knowledge production to a critique of the actual forces and output of the wiki way of doing things – symbolized an implicit acceptance of Knowledge's status in the digital age as the preeminent source of

307:

Diverse and divergent as human society itself, one can never truly generalize about those involved in editing Knowledge. However, to improve the public's ability not just to understand Knowledge's process but also participate in it and provide critical oversight of the world's leading source of

2544:

and ask a different oversighter to confirm whether the removal legitimately complied with the approved reasons for oversight, and they can probably characterize why it was oversighted. (i.e. they might say it contained the address of a minor, or they may say a specific user posted an extremely

2454:

I agree that the WMF Communications team is an amazing resource, and it doesn't surprise me that they help with a number of your stories in the Signpost, Smallbones. As for your suggestion about working independently with the community, that certainly helps for a LOT of stories that I write. I

797:

Nonetheless, much more can be done – by journalists, the Wikimedia Foundation and even the Knowledge community of volunteers. Though Knowledge's technology purportedly offers fully transparency, public understanding of Knowledge's processes, bureaucracy, and internal jargon is still a massive

352:

In short, we argue for what we term "wiki journalism" and the need for media to play a larger role in improving the general public's "Knowledge literacy". With the help of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Knowledge community, the press, we claim, can play a more substantial role in explaining

546:

Epistemological and social fears of Knowledge were also fueled by Knowledge's biggest public media storm to date – the so-called Essjay scandal of 2007. It even spurred calls to reform Knowledge. The fact that Ryan Jordan held an official status within Knowledge's community seemed to echo an

459:

Tellingly, 2005 was also the year that the Knowledge community first began recording its coverage in the media in an organized fashion. Initially focused on instances of "Wiki love" from the press, in 2005 the community created categories and project pages like "America's Top Newspapers Use

512:

published a "eulogy" for print encyclopedia and flagged the need to understand the "epistemology of Knowledge" and the "wikitruth" it bred. Knowledge's underlying philosophy – its model's effects on the very nature of facticity – was now deserving of more serious and critical examination.

316:

and its community have had with the media, with the explicit attempt of helping to forge a new path for them, one in which journalists accurately portray the community, but also one in which the community works with journalists to help them navigate the halls of online encyclopedic power.

688:

declared that "fundamentally … the project gets the big questions right." This would become the main theme of coverage and by the time Knowledge marked its 20th anniversary, most main stream media sources were gushing with what the community in 2005 called "wiki love" for the project.

618:

The 2011 series about gender on Knowledge followed a 2010 survey conducted by United Nations University and UNU-MERIT that indicated only 12.64 percent of Knowledge contributors were female among the respondents. Although the results of that study were later challenged, much like with

731:

piece titled, "Why Knowledge Works", the site's norms of review and monitoring by a community of editors, and deleting false information and inflammatory material, seems vastly superior to the way social media platforms like Twitter fail to moderate similarly problematic content.

353:

Knowledge to the public and serving as a civilian watchdog for the online encyclopedia. Encouraging critical readership of Knowledge and helping to increase diversity among its editorship will ensure greater public oversight over the digital age's preeminent source of knowledge.

1942: 153: 2235:

if they want to help fix Knowledge. It's now basically a cliche to hear a celebrity complaining about the inaccuracy of their Knowledge article, but that information is usually just repetition of news media. We're the symptom, not the disease. They never want to look inwards.

426:. Within a year, however, the newspaper's take on Knowledge changed dramatically, and it was now concerned by the long term effect of Knowledge's success, suggesting "the Internet's free dissemination of knowledge will eventually decrease the economic value of information". 133: 312:

to "fix" Knowledge instead of write about it. This position is of course understandable. However, it misses both the wider role Knowledge and journalism play in society. Knowledge is a volunteer-community-run project, but it does not belong exclusively to the community.

294:

The following is an attempt to map out the different stages of those ties over the years as well as to glean from them real conclusions to help improve them. In the end we lay out what we think are small yet key steps that can be taken by journalists, Wikipedians and the

769:

prudent for technology companies to leverage Knowledge in this way–the appearance of partnership is enough to spur a news story. The more it seems as if Knowledge has become aligned with Big Tech, the more likely the encyclopedia will receive similarly adverse coverage.

630:

made little difference. The fact that the UN study received an entire series of articles indicates how the results struck a cultural nerve. What did it say about Knowledge–and internet knowledge generally – that a disproportionate number of the contributors were men?

264:, one of the most important (as well as most edited) articles on the project, explains that the ability to lock pages and prevent anonymous public editing on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit was the key to Knowledge's success in weeding out disinformation on the 299:

to help improve the public's understanding of the project. While our research for MIT Press was intended for the academic community and the WMF, and while the CJR article was focused on journalists and how they can improve their coverage of Knowledge, this text for

2459:

last year where I mentioned the English Knowledge article "Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India," which had been deleted. Luckily, I knew the editor who had created that article, and that person still had a draft saved, so I was able to

536:, who had left the project by then, lamented "the fate of expertise after Knowledge". Though largely negative, these in-depth reports also permitted a more detailed treatment of Knowledge's theory of knowledge. Articles like Marshal Poe's "The Hive", published in 815:

participating in Knowledge's transparency. Much like we need a strong active media to help encourage and facilitate civilian oversight of political processes, so too do we need robust media coverage to help encourage civic involvement in encyclopedic processes.

2513:

your Knowledge userspace. I don't think we currently have a guideline covering reporter-requests, so admins may or may-not provide the page. I suspect the community would approve a guidelines for reporter-requests, if properly drafted proposal were posted at

664:

their profession: With the most dramatic decline in newsroom staffs since the Great Recession, Knowledge was now used by journalists for conducting initial research –another example of the mutually affirming relationship between the media and Knowledge.

471:

report – alongside its biggest vilification – the so-called Seigenthaler affair. By 2005, Knowledge was no longer quirky. Now it was to be viewed within a new framework which contrasted its popularity with its accuracy and debated the risks it posed.

2115:

I don't know whether the actual story makes Knowledge look better or worse than the story that's often told (I could probably spin it either way if I tried). The first step is to get the facts accurate, after which we can debate the interpretation.

651:

During this period, prestigious publications also began profiling individual Knowledge contributors, giving faces and names to the forces behind our knowledge. "Wikipedians" were increasingly cast as activists and recognized outside the community.

691:

Cohen's "Good Cop" marks the latest shift in coverage of Knowledge, one that embarks from the issue of truthiness and reexamines its merits in the wake of the "post-truth" politics and "fake news" – 2016 and 2017's respective words of the year.

614:

series calling out "trolls and other nuisances" and Knowledge's "antisocial factor," as well as "nerd avoidance". Press coverage had shifted from the epistemological merits of Knowledge to legitimate concerns about bias in its contributor base.

2210:

Very well written, some great thoughts in there. I somewhat bristle at the idea that we should hand out access to deleted content to reporters, but the idea that we need to be more accessible and understandable to the media is super important.

2479:

they have an odd focus; it could benefit researchers to know what Wikipedians think is important and what it would benefit us to know (assuming that papers are supposed to be concretely useful to someone in the real world rather than just

370:

included a colorful lede ("What does Nicole Kidman have in common with Kurt Godel?" Both have Knowledge articles) showcasing the quirky diversity of content on the new site, where "ou don't even have to give your real name" to contribute.

417:

s vaunted staff was now down to a mere 20 editors. Only a year prior, Knowledge editors noted that the prestigious paper "brushed off" Knowledge almost entirely and instead focused on CD-ROM encyclopedias – all the rage since

2540:

cases to deal with vandalism when other methods fail. Even admins cannot view oversighted content. There is little chance anyone would be allowed access to oversighted content. Probably the best you can do is check the

2461: 2350:

Journalists need to learn how to click the button "View history". There's no point saying "it's believed that there may have been..." about a completely open-source website with a transparent revision history. —

1105:

Matthew F. Pierlott, "Truth, Truthiness, and Bullshit for the American Voter," in Stephen Colbert and Philosophy: I Am Philosophy (and So Can You!), ed. A. A. Schiller (Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing, 2009),

941:. Citing Knowledge, The New York Times Magazine chose "Populist editing" as one of 2001's big ideas: Steven Johnson, "The Year in Ideas: A to Z; Populist Editing," New York Times Magazine, December 9, 2001, 1638: 1591: 875: 639:

highlighted not only the gender gap in percentage of female contributors, but in the content of biographical articles, and the efforts by some activists to change the status quo. Publications ranging from

332:

sought to call out a perceived flaw in Knowledge: On Knowledge, truth was fluid and facts were exposed to anonymous vandals who could take advantage of its anyone-can-edit model to spread disinformation.

453:

study was the final stage in a process that peaked in 2005 and cemented Knowledge's shift from a web novelty whose value was to be treated skeptically at best to a cultural force to be reckoned with.

2422:(and not overplaying their pet stories). They could suggest that they'd be open to an interview. (Note journalists should register Wiki accounts so that they can send email to users who want it.) 591:. Knowledge was now a beat. Its worldview was now fully embedded within our social and political reality. The question was what was it telling us, who was writing it, and who was being excluded. 2093:

newbies or setting double standards in treatment of content can make us complicit, but none of us are morally obliged to write any particular article that is missing, because we are volunteers.)

501:

wrote that year. Knowledge was no longer taken to be just another website, it was now a powerhouse undermining intellectual institutions and capable of changing our very perception of reality.

2410:

deleted articles and censored edits – a right currently reserved for official administrators – could help reporters better understand the full context of edit wars and other content disputes.

2618:

Indeed. From the introduction to the article, "Omer Benjakob is a journalist and researcher focused on Knowledge and disinformation online. He is the tech and cyber reporter and editor for

2248:

the disdained "liberal elite-run mainstream media". They have the ability to monitor their site 100 times better than they do, and they are sometimes quite rightly satirised for this (e.g.

336:

Over the past twenty years, English Knowledge has frequently been the subject of media coverage, from in-depth exposés to colorful features and critical Op-eds. Is Knowledge "impolite" as

324:"Jimmy Wales has been shot dead, according to Knowledge, the online, up-to-the-minute encyclopedia." That was the opening line of a blatantly false 2005 news report by the online magazine 566:

The politicization of knowledge, alongside a proliferation of alternative wikis – exacerbated in part by Wales' for-profit website Wikia, launched in 2006 – all served to highlight the

715:

to politicians around the world whose rhetoric is not reality-based. Moreover, the Knowledge community's commitment to sourcing claims (exemplified by Knowledge's community ban on the

1087:. It was also on the front page of Asharq Al-Awsat's December 9, 2005 print edition and was even reported in Serbian: S. R., "Неслана шала са Википедије," Politika, December 16, 2005. 719:

in 2017 and of Breitbart in 2018) highlighted how Knowledge's model was seemingly more successful than the traditional media in fighting its own flaws and the rise of "fake news."

2274:

Much of the popular coverage of Knowledge is still lacking and is either reductive or superficial, treating Knowledge as a unified voice and amplifying minor errors and vandalism.

362:

it is written by anyone, edited collaboratively, is free to access and, in the case of tech media, extends the culture of open software development to the realm of encyclopedias.

76: 2000:

Hrm. The correction is appreciated, though now I'm torn between thinking that's a distinction without a difference, in terms of society at large, and feeling like that's even

986:

Dan Goodin, "Science Journal: Knowledge Pretty Accurate," Associated Press, December 14, 2005. The AP report was reprinted in over 112 media outlets, including Al Jazeera and

2018:

Declining a draft is a decision taken by a single person, whereas deleting a page requires a whole process. If the Donna Strickland draft had been promoted and then taken to

517:

ran a piece on "Knowledge and the Meaning of Truth", asking "why the online encyclopedia's epistemology should worry those who care about traditional notions of accuracy".

2267: 997:

s findings, writing: "Knowledge Survives Research Test" (BBC News Online, December 15, 2005), as did Australia's The Age (Stephen Cauchi, December 15, 2005), to name a few.

398:

is perhaps the most prominent characteristic of early media coverage, one that will disappear in later stages as Knowledge cements its status as a legitimate encyclopedia.

1639:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/happy-18th-birthday-wikipedia-lets-celebrate-the-internets-good-grown-up/2019/01/14/e4d854cc-1837-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html

1126:, for example, introduced errors into his own page to see how long they would stand online – a genre in its own right – see, for example, Gene Weingarten, "Wiki Watchee," 607:

By 2011, however, the press coverage had zeroed in on the site's gender imbalance. Headlines were much more openly critical of the community itself than in the past, with

2473: 2199: 1592:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/conspiracy-videos-fake-news-enter-wikipedia-the-good-cop-of-the-internet/2018/04/06/ad1f018a-3835-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html

876:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/conspiracy-videos-fake-news-enter-wikipedia-the-good-cop-of-the-internet/2018/04/06/ad1f018a-3835-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html

1901: 1271:, February 4, 2006, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302610.htm; Nate Anderson, "Congressional Staffers Edit Boss's Bio on Knowledge," 1148: 2496: 2390: 648:

types of bias such geographical blind spots and the site's exclusion of oral history and other knowledge that did not meet the Western notions of verifiable sources.

2446: 2177: 2150: 1906: 1896: 1655: 2337: 2220: 274:

identified Knowledge's page protection policies as 'erhaps the most important' means at Knowledge's disposal to 'regulate its market of ideas'". The article in the

2609: 1921: 2060: 2035: 2013: 1911: 2364: 2297: 2125: 2558: 1926: 1876: 1871: 1717: 2671: 2400: 2110: 1957: 1633:

Madrigal, "Knowledge, the Last Bastion of Shared Reality"; Stephen Harrison, "Happy 18th Birthday, Knowledge. Let's Celebrate the Internet's Good Grown-up,"

1574: 123: 429:

At the end of 2005, this tension between the English encyclopedia of the Enlightenment and that of the digital age would reach its zenith in a now infamous

1891: 555: 1864: 2085:

piece touches on a very interesting point about the media (and by extension the public) viewing Knowledge as "the Man" as time goes on. But we are not

456:

In March of 2005, Knowledge had crossed the half a million article mark and some intellectuals began to discuss the "the wikification of knowledge".

2687: 604:

headlines like "Growing Knowledge Refines its ‘Anyone Can Edit' Possibility" (2006) and "Without a Source, Knowledge Can't Handle the Truth" (2008).

2255: 1995: 1931: 1858: 1834: 1825: 1695: 55: 44: 2377:

A quick note to say thanks for the kind and constructive feedback on the article. Yes, we certainly worked hard and spent a lot of time on it for

1524: 823:

roots of its biases and shortcomings. This will serve to highlight the politics of knowledge production instead of politicizing knowledge itself.

2587: 1886: 1608: 1916: 1438:

Benjamin Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw, "The Knowledge Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation,"

1208: 186:

Omer Benjakob is a journalist and researcher focused on Knowledge and disinformation online. He is the tech and cyber reporter and editor for

2245:

The more it seems as if Knowledge has become aligned with Big Tech, the more likely the encyclopedia will receive similarly adverse coverage.

2225:

This is an exceptional piece and it has given me a lot to think about. It also raises some points I've already been thinking about recently:

777:

magazine, in what would be the first of many stories praising Knowledge's response to the virus due to its especially rigid sourcing policy.

660:

from over 40,000 articles. Journalists (including the authors of this paper) have continued this trend of profiling Wikipedians themselves.

2739: 2190:

Many thanks, Smallbones. I would write about stories about Knowledge MORE than once per month if I could, but I'm often strapped for time!

1460: 1339:

Steve Fuller, Post-Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game (London, UK: Anthem Press, 2018), 125; John C. Dvorak, "Googlepedia: The End is Near,"

1011: 883: 1429:

Ruediger Glott, Phillip Schmidt, and Rishab Ghoseh, "Knowledge Survey – Overview of Results," United Nations University, March 15, 2010.

30:

From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Knowledge's First Two Decades: A new "wiki journalism" is needed.

1115:

The stunt earned Colbert (or at least a user associated with him) a lifetime ban from editing Knowledge, but others followed suit: the

2258:

of the few overworked outsourced moderators YouTube have. But the offloading onto Knowledge is a trick: fault with the system becomes

1149:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2006/08/06/its-on-wikipedia-so-it-must-be-true/c3668ff7-0b66-4968-b669-56c982c2c3fd/

1096:

Allan Metcalf, "Truthiness Voted 2005 Word of the Year by American Dialect Society," American Dialect Society, January 6, 2005, 1–7.

740:

publication as part of a wider "conspiracy theory" relating to Biden being pushed out by Trump's proxies. By election day, Reuters,

2141:

this point. I do hope we will be able to see Knowledge expand to other countries and have the media discuss that. Time will tell! -

1656:

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/.premium.MAGAZINE-how-wikipedia-is-fighting-for-facts-by-redefining-the-truth-1.5628749

1395:

Katie Hafner, "Growing Knowledge Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy"; Idea of the Day Series, "The Epistemology of Knowledge,"

21: 2456: 1962: 2715: 2518: 1946: 909: 882:; John Naughton, "In a Hysterical World, Knowledge Is a Ray of Light – and That's the Truth," The Guardian, September 2, 2018, 874:; Noam Cohen, "Conspiracy Videos? Fake News? Enter Knowledge, the 'Good Cop' of the Internet," Washington Post, April 6, 2018, 356: 2249: 1785: 1734: 2710: 2705: 1080: 942: 1718:

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-breitbart-declares-war-on-wikipedia-in-facebook-s-fight-against-fake-news-1.5991915

1969: 847: 2564: 1575:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/01/15/wikipedia-just-turned-15-years-old-will-it-survive-15-more

2572:

However, I'm afraid that the examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

1084: 93: 1054: 2700: 1301: 1131: 1712:

Omer Benjakob, "Breitbart Declares War on Knowledge as Encyclopedia Gets Drafted into Facebook's 'Fake News' Battle,"

938: 2313: 1067: 543:

s September 2006 edition, laid out for intellectual readers Knowledge's history and philosophy like never before.

2514: 859: 667:

As more journalists used and wrote about Knowledge, the tone of their writing changed. In one of his reports for

1525:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/08/09/more-british-people-trust-wikipedia-trust-news

1477: 748:

and others were all praising Knowledge for being more prepared for election disinformation than social media.

678: 528:

asked: "Do we need a more reliable online encyclopedia than Knowledge?" In a report that profiled Wikipedians,

2026:. (And I've seen a lot of deletion debates for scientists and other scholarly types over the last few years.) 1609:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-wikipedias-bickering-editors-go-to-war-its-supreme-court-steps-in-1525708429

2630:

as well as academic publications. Stephen Harrison is an attorney and writer whose writings have appeared in

2312:" Yes, that's a doozy. Gearbrain, which seems to exist to sell computer gear, was rewriting a story from the 2309: 2263: 735:

With the 2020 election, this process reached its zenith. While Twitter and Facebook scrambled to prevent the

1681: 1209:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/the-nitpicking-of-the-masses-vs-the-authority-of-the-experts.html

896: 2695: 1846: 1443: 1010:; see also Jaron Lanier, "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism," Edge, May 29, 2006, 962: 479: 49: 35: 17: 2575:

Nearly every source quoted is American or British. And the other Knowledge editions are barely mentioned.

1541: 1250:, March 7, 2007; Noam Cohen, "After False Claim, Knowledge to Check Whether a User Has Advanced Degrees," 1729:

Lachlan Markay and Dean Sterling Jones, "Who Whitewashed the Wiki of Alleged Russian Spy Maria Butina?"

1461:

https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-10/feminist-edit-a-thon-makes-wikipedia-more-diverse/

1287:

Bobbie Johnson, "Conservapedia – The US Religious Right's Answer to Knowledge," Guardian, March 2, 2007.

1012:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-digital-maoism-the-hazards-of-the-new-online-collectivism

871: 2469: 2386: 2195: 1164:, ed. Aaron Allen Schiller, (Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing, 2009); The Colbert Report, July 31, 2016. 803: 270: 2541: 2344:"It said it was reading from Knowledge but when I checked the article online, it didn't say on there" 1314: 884:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/02/in-hysterical-world-wikipedia-ray-of-light-truth

1237:

Catherine Elsworth, "Knowledge Professor Is 24-Year-Old College Dropout," 'Telegraph', March 7, 2007.

1055:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Press_coverage&diff=877404926&oldid=33446632

908:

Peter Meyers, "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You", The New York Times, September 20, 2001,

2535:" on their own Talk page or on the article Talk page. Three: "Censored edits" most likely refers to 2164:

who's been writing great Wiki-journalism from almost the very beginning, as noted in the text here.

1984: 1079:

Katherine Q. Seelye, "Snared in the Web of a Knowledge Liar," The New York Times, December 4, 2005,

958: 926: 858:

Andrew Orlowski, "Knowledge Founder 'Shot by Friend of Siegenthaler,'" Register, December 17, 2005,

71:

From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Knowledge's First Two Decades

2348:

It is believed Alexa may have sourced the rogue text from Knowledge, which can be edited by anyone.

1768: 1211:; Paul Vallely, "The Big Question: Do We Need a More Reliable Online Encyclopedia than Knowledge?" 2545:

abusive and racist personal attack.) Any abuse or concerns regarding Oversight are handled by the

1802: 1751: 842:

Stephen Harrison and Omer Benjakob, "Knowledge is twenty. It's time to start covering it better",

657: 268:. Citing a respected media source, Knowledge's Knowledge article explains: "A 2021 article in the 2073:

included. But we are overwhelmed and number too few to do this. This draft process is overrun by

1763:

Martin Dittus and Mark Graham, "To Reduce Inequality, Knowledge Should Consider Paying Editors,"

1246:

Brian Bergstein, "After Flap Over Phony Professor, Knowledge Wants Writers to Share Real Names,"

1027:; Knowledge, s.v. "Knowledge: America's Top Newspapers Use Knowledge," accessed August 29, 2019, 961:; Knowledge contributors, "Knowledge: Press coverage 2003," Knowledge, accessed August 29, 2019, 594: 1178: 1068:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Wikipedia_as_a_press_source&oldid=601134577

1814:"Google Blames Knowledge for Linking California GOP to Nazism," Associated Press, June 1, 2018. 1650:

Omer Benjakob, "Is the Sky Blue? How Knowledge Is Fighting for Facts by Redefining the Truth,"

1028: 1024: 895:

Alexis C. Madrigal, "Knowledge, the Last Bastion of Shared Reality," Atlantic, August 7, 2018,

2342:

A source worse than The S*n, never thought I'd see the day. At least The S*n bothers to quote

1536:

Holly Epstein Ojalvo, "How Do You Use Knowledge? Media People Talking About How They Use It,"

1254:, March 12, 2007; Noam Cohen, "Knowledge Tries Approval System to Reduce Vandalism on Pages," 2605: 2465: 2426:

the only thing that would really get done is making contacts and throwing out general ideas.

2382: 2237: 2191: 2146: 2121: 2031: 1991: 1586:

Noam Cohen, "Conspiracy Videos? Fake News? Enter Knowledge, the 'Good Cop' of the Internet,"

1507: 1369:

Bobbie Johnson, "Deletionists vs. Inclusionists. Teaching People about the Knowledge World,"

1357: 957:

Leslie Walker, "Spreading Knowledge: The Wiki Way," The Washington Post, September 9, 2004,

910:

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html

879: 703:

as "the last bastion of shared reality" online, and for its 18th birthday, it was lauded by

422:

launched a decade earlier, mounting what seemed at the time to be the bigger threat towards

2721: 2439: 2330: 2216: 2170: 1786:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-maher-wikipedia-gender-bias-20181018-story.html

1735:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-whitewashed-the-wiki-of-alleged-russian-spy-maria-butina/

524:

debated the merits of "the nitpicking of the masses vs. the authority of the experts", and

508:

During 2006–2009, the dominance of Knowledge's encyclopedic model was solidified. In 2008,

296: 2480: 2229:

Many times, we as journalists have been told to "fix" Knowledge instead of write about it.

1081:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/snared-in-the-web-of-a-wikipedia-liar.html

1041: 943:

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/magazine/the-year-in-ideas-a-to-z-populist-editing.html

878:; Noam Cohen, "Defending Knowledge's Impolite Side," The New York Times, August 20, 2007, 547:

increasingly accepted political truism: facts were being manipulated by those with power.

8: 2638: 2536: 520:

Concerns that Knowledge's epistemic model was replacing expertise loomed large: In 2006,

251: 211: 1276: 1066:

18. Knowledge, s.v. "Knowledge: Knowledge as a Press Source," accessed August 29, 2019,

963:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Press_coverage_2003&oldid=760053436

848:

https://www.cjr.org/opinion/wikipedia-is-twenty-its-time-to-start-covering-it-better.php

239: 2632: 2583: 1780:

Katherine Maher, "Knowledge Mirrors the World's Gender Biases, It Doesn't Cause Them,"

1620:

Omer Benjakob, "Verified: Knowledge Is Our Unlikely Champion in the War of Fake News,"

1007: 489: 319: 205: 1085:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113450010488821460-LrYQrY_jrOtOK3IiwMcglEq6aiE_20061223

1023:

Knowledge, s.v. "Knowledge: Wikilove from the Press," last modified January 14, 2017,

467:

Indeed, 2005 was to be a key year for Knowledge: it saw its biggest vindication – the

2569:

Dear Signpost staff, thank you for writing this long, deep and well-sourced article.

2321: 2056: 2009: 1953: 826: 784: 1603:

Corine Ramey, "The 15 People Who Keep Knowledge's Editors from Killing Each Other,"

1302:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301614.html

1132:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030601573.html

170: 2656: 2644: 2601: 2546: 2489: 2357: 2290: 2142: 2117: 2103: 2042: 2027: 1987: 1980: 1315:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reliability_of_Wikipedia&oldid=907354472

229: 217: 1416:, February 2, 2011; Henry Etzkowitz and Maria Ranga, "Knowledge: Nerd Avoidance," 939:

https://slashdot.org/story/04/07/28/1351230/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-responds

2554: 2434: 2325: 2212: 2165: 1203:

George Johnson, "The Nitpicking of the Masses vs. the Authority of the Experts,"

1123: 974:

Jim Giles, "Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head," Nature, December 14, 2005,

484: 402:, for example, unironically claimed that Knowledge "will probably never dethrone 1006:

John C. Dvorak, "The Wikification of Knowledge," PC Magazine, November 7, 2005,

2090: 2023: 1676:

Stephen Amstrong, "Inside Knowledge's Volunteer-run Battle Against Fake News,"

937:

Rob Miller, "Knowledge Founder Jimmy Wales Responds," Slashdot, July 28, 2004,

925:

Judy Heim, "Free the Encyclopedias!" MIT Technology Review, September 4, 2001,

2517:. In the absence of a guideline, I would suggest a request could be posted to 860:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/jimmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia/

2733: 2667: 2595: 2579: 2074: 2019: 2266:" rather than "We shouldn't trust Amazon", even though Alexa has been found 1478:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/the-geography-of-fame.html

2650: 2522: 2317: 2067: 2052: 2005: 1569:

Andrew Lih, "Knowledge Just Turned 15 Years Old. Will it Survive 15 More?"

551: 533: 445:

as reliable as the static entries of a vaunted print-era encyclopedia like

223: 203:

Stephen Harrison is an attorney and writer whose writings have appeared in

975: 493:

with a segment dedicated to what would be dubbed 2005's word of the year:

2484: 2352: 2305: 2285: 2098: 1682:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/fake-news-wikipedia-arbitration-committee

1382:

Noam Cohen, "Knowledge May Restrict Public's Ability to Change Entries,"

1083:; Jason Fry, "Knowledge's Woes," Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2005, 897:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

761:

awareness of the symbiotic relationship between the media and Knowledge.

265: 1444:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.006578

1352:

Katie Hafner, "Growing Knowledge Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy,"

2550: 2161: 1542:

https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/how-do-you-use-wikipedia/

1053:

Knowledge, s.v. "Knowledge: Press coverage," accessed August 29, 2019,

1042:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Signpost&oldid=913126984

584: 579:

results and sparking concerns of a "googlepedia" by internet thinkers.

1313:

Knowledge, s.v. "Reliability of Knowledge," accessed August 29, 2019,

1519:

William Jordan, "British People Trust Knowledge More Than the News,"

1040:

Knowledge, s.v. "The Signpost," Knowledge, accessed August 29, 2019,

872:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/the-hive/305118/

261: 1489:

Elaine Woo, "Adrianne Wadewitz, Knowledge Contributor, Dies at 37,"

1455:

Sarah Marloff, "Feminist Edit-a-Thon Makes Knowledge More Diverse,"

2662: 2626: 374:

in scale and scope, as well as its expansion into other languages.

194: 2600:

This article was written by two journalists, not Signpost staff. -

1983:

had an article that was deleted. A draft was written and declined

1173:

Noam Cohen, "Start Writing the Eulogies for Print Encyclopedias,"

2620: 2086: 1556:

Noam Cohen, "When Knowledge Isn't Written, Does It Still Count?"

1162:

Stephen Colbert and Philosophy: I Am Philosophy (and So Can You!)

959:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5430-2004Sep8.html

927:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401190/free-the-encyclopedias/

558:

during 2006 after politicians' articles were whitewashed in what

550:

Knowledge was increasingly being politicized and the entirety of

278:

was written by us, in wake of research we conducted for the book

188: 2004:, in terms of how it reflects on our own processes / biases. -- 1769:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-inequality-pay-editors

2268:

cherry-picking Knowledge article content to spread antisemitism

1803:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/why-wikipedia-works.html

1752:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/why-wikipedia-works.html

1224:

Lawrence M. Sanger, "The Fate of Expertise After Knowledge,"

1179:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/weekinreview/16ncohen.html

2660:

magazine about Knowledge and the information ecosystem." ☆

1190:

Simson L. Garfinkel, "Knowledge and the Meaning of Truth,"

365:"Anyone who visits the site is encouraged to participate," 1667:

Madrigal, "Knowledge, the Last Bastion of Shared Reality."

1508:

https://www.wired.com/2015/02/meet-the-ultimate-wikignome/

870:

Marshall Poe, "The Hive," Atlantic 298, no. 2 (2006): 86,

283:

journalists covering Knowledge like us (Omer Benjakob for

1412:, February 4, 2011; Anna North, "The Antisocial Factor," 1358:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html

880:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/technology/20link.html

233:

magazine about Knowledge and the information ecosystem.

2254:), though woefully inadequate attention is given to the 1696:"The Witch Hunt Against a 'Pro-Israel' Knowledge Editor" 1296:

Jacqueline Hicks Grazette, "Wikiality in My Classroom,"

1160:

David Detmer, "Philosophy in the Age of Truthiness," in

801:

These issues are discussed at length in our text in the

1267:

Yuki Noguchi, "On Capitol Hill, Playing WikiPolitics,"

1143:

Frank Ahrens, "It's on Knowledge, So It Must Be True,"

2022:, I'm almost certain it would have been kept, per the 2457:

wrote an article about COVID misinformation for Slate

1277:

https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/01/6079-2/

626:

s study, the fact that its results were contested by

1008:

https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1835857,00.asp

1967:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try 1472:Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, "The Geography of Fame," 2262:rather than fault with Big Tech. The headline is " 532:wondered: "Can Knowledge conquer expertise?"; and 2429:BTW I have a huge COI here as editor-in-chief of 2731: 1502:Andrew McMillen, "Meet the Ultimate Wikignome," 575:termed the "separate realities" within America. 2549:, or ultimately by the Wikimedia Foundation. 1326:John Schwarz, "When No Fact Goes Unchecked," 161: 683:In April 2018, Cohen wrote an article for 460:Knowledge" for its early press clippings. 260:For example, Knowledge's main article for 1408:Terri Oda, "Trolls and Other Nuisances," 556:banned from editing Knowledge anonymously 2654:. He writes the Source Notes column for 1693: 953: 951: 227:. He writes the Source Notes column for 1970: 1552: 1550: 976:https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a 587:, who covered the encyclopedia for the 449:– made headlines around the world. The 433:news study that compared Knowledge and 340:claimed, or rather a "ray of light" as 304:is aimed at the Wikipedian community. 14: 2732: 2533:explanation of what you want help with 1797:Brian Feldman, "Why Knowledge Works," 1746:Brian Feldman, "Why Knowledge Works," 921: 919: 917: 838: 836: 383:and its more digital savvy competitor 2506:read-only status for deleted articles 2308:'s example of a misreported article " 948: 162:By Omer Benjakob and Stephen Harrison 54: 29: 2401:Toward a better working relationship 2231:I think journalists would be better 1547: 487:launched his satirical news program 2740:Knowledge Signpost archives 2021-01 914: 833: 707:as "the Internet's good grown up." 699:Truth." Knowledge was described by 238:This article has been updated from 27: 2024:notability guideline for academics 1845: 242:published on November 16, 2020 by 198:as well as academic publications. 169: 56: 34: 28: 2751: 1952:These comments are automatically 437:. Published in December of 2005, 2525:) with a fair chance of success. 2310:Amazon shouldn't trust Knowledge 2264:Amazon shouldn't trust Knowledge 658:deleting the term "comprised of" 148: 138: 128: 118: 108: 98: 88: 2688:putting together the next issue 1808: 1791: 1774: 1757: 1740: 1723: 1706: 1694:Benjakob, Omer (May 17, 2018). 1687: 1670: 1661: 1644: 1627: 1614: 1597: 1580: 1563: 1530: 1513: 1496: 1483: 1466: 1449: 1432: 1423: 1402: 1389: 1376: 1363: 1346: 1333: 1320: 1307: 1290: 1281: 1261: 1240: 1231: 1218: 1197: 1184: 1167: 1154: 1137: 1109: 1099: 1090: 1073: 1060: 1047: 1034: 1017: 1000: 980: 357:Authorial anarchy (2001–2004/5) 2519:WP:Administrators'_noticeboard 1963:add the page to your watchlist 990:. The BBC also reported about 968: 931: 902: 889: 864: 852: 13: 1: 2672:18:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC) 2624:and his work has appeared in 2559:22:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 192:and his work has appeared in 2610:21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC) 2588:16:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 2497:13:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 2474:04:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 2447:15:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 2391:04:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 2365:11:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 2338:03:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 2298:01:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 2221:16:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2200:04:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 2178:01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 2151:02:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2126:13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 2111:00:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 2061:19:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2036:16:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 2014:14:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 1996:20:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC) 1938: 18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost 7: 2578:We can always do better. -- 2462:link to the deleted content 2414:interests me a great deal. 1194:, 111, no. 6 (2008): 84–86. 10: 2756: 2405:The paragraph in the text 844:Columbia Journalism Review 804:Columbia Journalism Review 276:Columbia Journalism Review 271:Columbia Journalism Review 246:and is licensed CC BY 4.0. 2078:standards for acceptance. 756:writing an op-ed for the 287:and Stephen Harrison for 2515:WP:Village pump (policy) 2322:Kennedy News & Media 1979:It is not the case that 2481:playing games of chmess 2233:doing better journalism 1228:6, no. 1 (2009): 52–73. 696:The Wall Street Journal 679:Good Cop (2018–present) 390:Repeated comparison to 257:encyclopedic success. 2412: 2320:) which they got from 1960:. To follow comments, 1850: 1767:, September 11, 2018, 1122:s satirical columnist 1029:Special:Diff/760053107 1025:Special:Diff/760052982 181:new "wiki journalism." 174: 39: 2547:Arbitration Committee 2407: 2316:(which reads like an 2020:Articles for deletion 1849: 1654:, December 15, 2017, 1192:MIT Technology Review 515:MIT Technology Review 480:Wikiality (2005–2008) 400:MIT Technology Review 376:MIT Technology Review 173: 38: 2542:list of oversighters 2260:fault with Knowledge 2075:conflict-of-interest 1956:from this article's 1784:, October 18, 2018, 1637:, January 14, 2019, 1573:, January 15, 2016, 1540:, November 9, 2010, 1506:, February 3, 2015, 1343:, February 17, 2005. 846:, January 14, 2021. 641:The Austin Chronicle 297:Wikimedia Foundation 2639:The Washington Post 2346:. But it ends with 1902:Videos and podcasts 1680:, August 21, 2018, 1624:, July 2019, 22–23. 1605:Wall Street Journal 1588:The Washington Post 1571:The Washington Post 1491:The Washington Post 1420:, February 4, 2011. 1399:, October 23, 2008. 1386:, January 23, 2009. 1275:, January 30, 2006 1269:The Washington Post 1215:, October 18, 2006. 1207:, January 3, 2006, 705:The Washington Post 685:The Washington Post 654:The Washington Post 560:The Washington Post 499:The Washington Post 408:The Washington Post 212:The Washington Post 2633:The New York Times 2565:Template:Globalize 2529:and censored edits 2256:abusive conditions 1947:Discuss this story 1851: 1801:, March 16, 2018, 1750:, March 16, 2018, 1716:, April 24, 2018, 1558:The New York Times 1523:, August 9, 2014, 1476:, March 22, 2014, 1459:, March 10, 2017, 1373:, August 12, 2009. 1300:, March 23, 2007, 1205:The New York Times 1177:, March 16, 2008, 1147:, August 6, 2006, 1130:, March 11, 2007, 669:The New York Times 609:The New York Times 601:The New York Times 599:In February 2011, 573:The New York Times 522:The New York Times 510:The New York Times 490:The Colbert Report 474:The New York Times 367:The New York Times 338:The New York Times 206:The New York Times 175: 45:← Back to Contents 40: 2304:Just an aside on 1971:purging the cache 1907:News from the WMF 1897:Technology report 1799:New York Magazine 1782:Los Angeles Times 1748:New York Magazine 1733:, July 24, 2018, 1590:, April 6, 2018, 1560:, August 7, 2011. 1493:, April 25, 2014. 1442:, June 26, 2013, 1356:, June 17, 2006, 758:Los Angeles Times 729:New York Magazine 50:View Latest Issue 2747: 2724: 2686:needs your help 2665: 2599: 2492: 2466:Stephenbharrison 2442: 2383:Stephenbharrison 2360: 2333: 2293: 2192:Stephenbharrison 2173: 2106: 2071: 2046: 1981:Donna Strickland 1974: 1972: 1966: 1945: 1922:Featured content 1869: 1861: 1854: 1837: 1829: 1815: 1812: 1806: 1795: 1789: 1778: 1772: 1761: 1755: 1744: 1738: 1727: 1721: 1710: 1704: 1703: 1691: 1685: 1674: 1668: 1665: 1659: 1648: 1642: 1631: 1625: 1618: 1612: 1601: 1595: 1584: 1578: 1567: 1561: 1554: 1545: 1534: 1528: 1517: 1511: 1500: 1494: 1487: 1481: 1470: 1464: 1457:Austin Chronicle 1453: 1447: 1436: 1430: 1427: 1421: 1406: 1400: 1393: 1387: 1380: 1374: 1367: 1361: 1350: 1344: 1337: 1331: 1324: 1318: 1311: 1305: 1294: 1288: 1285: 1279: 1265: 1259: 1258:, July 17, 2008. 1248:Associated Press 1244: 1238: 1235: 1229: 1222: 1216: 1201: 1195: 1188: 1182: 1171: 1165: 1158: 1152: 1141: 1135: 1121: 1113: 1107: 1103: 1097: 1094: 1088: 1077: 1071: 1064: 1058: 1051: 1045: 1038: 1032: 1021: 1015: 1004: 998: 996: 984: 978: 972: 966: 955: 946: 935: 929: 923: 912: 906: 900: 893: 887: 868: 862: 856: 850: 840: 625: 613: 595:Bias (2011–2017) 542: 443: 416: 163: 152: 151: 142: 141: 132: 131: 122: 121: 112: 111: 102: 101: 92: 91: 62: 60: 58: 2755: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2720: 2718: 2713: 2708: 2703: 2698: 2691: 2680: 2679: 2661: 2593: 2567: 2490: 2445: 2440: 2403: 2358: 2336: 2331: 2291: 2176: 2171: 2104: 2065: 2040: 1976: 1968: 1961: 1950: 1949: 1943:+ Add a comment 1941: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1912:Recent research 1862: 1859:31 January 2021 1857: 1855: 1852: 1841: 1840: 1835: 1832: 1827: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1813: 1809: 1796: 1792: 1779: 1775: 1762: 1758: 1745: 1741: 1728: 1724: 1711: 1707: 1692: 1688: 1675: 1671: 1666: 1662: 1649: 1645: 1635:Washington Post 1632: 1628: 1619: 1615: 1607:, May 7, 2018, 1602: 1598: 1585: 1581: 1568: 1564: 1555: 1548: 1535: 1531: 1518: 1514: 1501: 1497: 1488: 1484: 1471: 1467: 1454: 1450: 1437: 1433: 1428: 1424: 1407: 1403: 1394: 1390: 1381: 1377: 1368: 1364: 1351: 1347: 1338: 1334: 1325: 1321: 1312: 1308: 1298:Washington Post 1295: 1291: 1286: 1282: 1266: 1262: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1232: 1223: 1219: 1202: 1198: 1189: 1185: 1172: 1168: 1159: 1155: 1145:Washington Post 1142: 1138: 1128:Washington Post 1124:Gene Weingarten 1119: 1117:Washington Post 1114: 1110: 1104: 1100: 1095: 1091: 1078: 1074: 1065: 1061: 1052: 1048: 1039: 1035: 1022: 1018: 1005: 1001: 994: 985: 981: 973: 969: 956: 949: 936: 932: 924: 915: 907: 903: 894: 890: 869: 865: 857: 853: 841: 834: 829: 787: 681: 623: 611: 597: 540: 526:The Independent 485:Stephen Colbert 482: 441: 414: 359: 322: 254: 176: 165: 164: 160: 159: 158: 149: 139: 129: 119: 109: 99: 89: 83: 80: 69: 65: 63: 57:31 January 2021 53: 52: 47: 41: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2753: 2743: 2742: 2719: 2714: 2709: 2704: 2699: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2682: 2681: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2613: 2612: 2566: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2526: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2437: 2402: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2379:Knowledge @ 20 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2328: 2301: 2300: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2271: 2242: 2238:WP:CITOGENESIS 2223: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2168: 2154: 2153: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2094: 2079: 2049: 1951: 1948: 1940: 1939: 1934: 1929: 1927:Traffic report 1924: 1919: 1914: 1909: 1904: 1899: 1894: 1889: 1884: 1879: 1877:Special report 1874: 1872:News and notes 1868: 1856: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1833: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1817: 1816: 1807: 1790: 1773: 1756: 1739: 1722: 1705: 1686: 1669: 1660: 1643: 1626: 1613: 1596: 1579: 1562: 1546: 1538:New York Times 1529: 1512: 1495: 1482: 1474:New York Times 1465: 1448: 1431: 1422: 1418:New York Times 1414:New York Times 1410:New York Times 1401: 1397:New York Times 1388: 1384:New York Times 1375: 1362: 1354:New York Times 1345: 1332: 1330:, October 31, 1328:New York Times 1319: 1306: 1289: 1280: 1260: 1256:New York Times 1252:New York Times 1239: 1230: 1217: 1196: 1183: 1175:New York Times 1166: 1153: 1136: 1108: 1098: 1089: 1072: 1059: 1046: 1033: 1016: 999: 988:The China Post 979: 967: 947: 930: 913: 901: 888: 863: 851: 831: 830: 828: 825: 786: 783: 680: 677: 645:The New Yorker 596: 593: 589:New York Times 530:The New Yorker 481: 478: 410:reported that 358: 355: 321: 318: 280:Knowledge @ 20 253: 250: 249: 248: 244:Knowledge @ 20 235: 200: 183: 168: 167: 166: 157: 156: 146: 136: 126: 116: 106: 96: 85: 84: 81: 75: 74: 73: 72: 67: 66: 64: 61: 48: 43: 42: 33: 32: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2752: 2741: 2738: 2737: 2735: 2723: 2717: 2712: 2707: 2702: 2697: 2689: 2685: 2673: 2669: 2664: 2659: 2658: 2653: 2652: 2647: 2646: 2641: 2640: 2635: 2634: 2629: 2628: 2623: 2622: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2597: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2576: 2573: 2570: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2543: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2511: 2507: 2504: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2486: 2482: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2458: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2443: 2436: 2432: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2354: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2334: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2299: 2295: 2294: 2287: 2283: 2282: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2246: 2243: 2239: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2226: 2224: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2209: 2208: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2179: 2174: 2167: 2163: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2139: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2100: 2095: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2069: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2044: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1964: 1959: 1955: 1944: 1933: 1930: 1928: 1925: 1923: 1920: 1918: 1915: 1913: 1910: 1908: 1905: 1903: 1900: 1898: 1895: 1893: 1890: 1888: 1885: 1883: 1880: 1878: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1860: 1853:In this issue 1848: 1839: 1831: 1811: 1804: 1800: 1794: 1787: 1783: 1777: 1770: 1766: 1760: 1753: 1749: 1743: 1736: 1732: 1726: 1719: 1715: 1709: 1701: 1697: 1690: 1683: 1679: 1673: 1664: 1657: 1653: 1647: 1640: 1636: 1630: 1623: 1617: 1610: 1606: 1600: 1593: 1589: 1583: 1576: 1572: 1566: 1559: 1553: 1551: 1543: 1539: 1533: 1526: 1522: 1516: 1509: 1505: 1499: 1492: 1486: 1479: 1475: 1469: 1462: 1458: 1452: 1445: 1441: 1435: 1426: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1405: 1398: 1392: 1385: 1379: 1372: 1366: 1359: 1355: 1349: 1342: 1336: 1329: 1323: 1316: 1310: 1303: 1299: 1293: 1284: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1264: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1243: 1234: 1227: 1221: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1200: 1193: 1187: 1180: 1176: 1170: 1163: 1157: 1150: 1146: 1140: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1118: 1112: 1102: 1093: 1086: 1082: 1076: 1069: 1063: 1056: 1050: 1043: 1037: 1030: 1026: 1020: 1013: 1009: 1003: 993: 989: 983: 977: 971: 964: 960: 954: 952: 944: 940: 934: 928: 922: 920: 918: 911: 905: 898: 892: 885: 881: 877: 873: 867: 861: 855: 849: 845: 839: 837: 832: 824: 820: 816: 812: 808: 806: 805: 799: 795: 791: 782: 778: 776: 770: 766: 762: 759: 753: 749: 747: 743: 738: 737:New York Post 733: 730: 724: 720: 718: 712: 708: 706: 702: 697: 693: 689: 686: 676: 672: 670: 665: 661: 659: 655: 649: 646: 642: 636: 632: 629: 622: 616: 610: 605: 602: 592: 590: 586: 580: 576: 574: 569: 564: 561: 557: 553: 548: 544: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 518: 516: 511: 506: 502: 500: 496: 492: 491: 486: 477: 475: 470: 465: 463: 457: 454: 452: 448: 440: 436: 432: 427: 425: 421: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 388: 386: 382: 377: 371: 368: 363: 354: 350: 346: 343: 339: 334: 331: 327: 317: 313: 309: 305: 303: 298: 292: 290: 286: 281: 277: 273: 272: 267: 263: 258: 247: 243: 241: 236: 234: 231: 228: 225: 222: 219: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 199: 196: 193: 190: 187: 184: 182: 178: 177: 172: 155: 147: 145: 137: 135: 127: 125: 117: 115: 107: 105: 97: 95: 87: 86: 78: 59: 51: 46: 37: 23: 19: 2684:The Signpost 2683: 2655: 2651:The Atlantic 2649: 2643: 2637: 2631: 2625: 2619: 2577: 2574: 2571: 2568: 2537:WP:Oversight 2532: 2528: 2509: 2505: 2488: 2431:The Signpost 2430: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2413: 2408: 2404: 2378: 2356: 2347: 2343: 2318:urban legend 2289: 2273: 2259: 2250: 2244: 2232: 2228: 2102: 2082: 2001: 1892:In the media 1881: 1865:all comments 1838:"In focus" → 1810: 1798: 1793: 1781: 1776: 1764: 1759: 1747: 1742: 1730: 1725: 1713: 1708: 1699: 1689: 1677: 1672: 1663: 1651: 1646: 1634: 1629: 1621: 1616: 1604: 1599: 1587: 1582: 1570: 1565: 1557: 1537: 1532: 1520: 1515: 1503: 1498: 1490: 1485: 1473: 1468: 1456: 1451: 1439: 1434: 1425: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1404: 1396: 1391: 1383: 1378: 1370: 1365: 1353: 1348: 1340: 1335: 1327: 1322: 1309: 1297: 1292: 1283: 1273:Ars Technica 1272: 1268: 1263: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1242: 1233: 1225: 1220: 1212: 1204: 1199: 1191: 1186: 1174: 1169: 1161: 1156: 1144: 1139: 1127: 1116: 1111: 1101: 1092: 1075: 1062: 1049: 1036: 1019: 1002: 991: 987: 982: 970: 933: 904: 891: 866: 854: 843: 821: 817: 813: 809: 802: 800: 796: 792: 788: 779: 774: 771: 767: 763: 757: 754: 750: 745: 741: 736: 734: 728: 725: 721: 716: 713: 709: 704: 701:The Atlantic 700: 695: 694: 690: 684: 682: 673: 668: 666: 662: 653: 650: 644: 640: 637: 633: 627: 620: 617: 608: 606: 600: 598: 588: 581: 577: 572: 567: 565: 559: 552:Capitol Hill 549: 545: 538:The Atlantic 537: 534:Larry Sanger 529: 525: 521: 519: 514: 509: 507: 503: 498: 494: 488: 483: 473: 468: 466: 462:The Signpost 461: 458: 455: 450: 446: 438: 434: 430: 428: 423: 419: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 389: 384: 380: 375: 372: 366: 364: 360: 351: 347: 342:The Guardian 341: 337: 335: 330:The Register 329: 326:The Register 325: 323: 314: 310: 306: 302:The Signpost 301: 293: 288: 284: 279: 275: 269: 259: 255: 252:Introduction 245: 237: 232: 226: 224:The Atlantic 220: 214: 208: 202: 197: 191: 185: 179: 94:PDF download 2722:Suggestions 2602:Indy beetle 2143:Indy beetle 1954:transcluded 1731:Daily Beast 1341:PC Magazine 1213:Independent 320:Four phases 266:coronavirus 144:X (Twitter) 2521:(shortcut 2435:Smallbones 2326:Smallbones 2213:AdmiralEek 2166:Smallbones 2162:Noam Cohen 2118:XOR'easter 2043:XOR'easter 2028:XOR'easter 1988:XOR'easter 1830:"In focus" 827:References 785:Conclusion 717:Daily Mail 585:Noam Cohen 495:truthiness 447:Britannica 435:Britannica 424:Britannica 412:Britannica 404:Britannica 396:Britannica 381:Britannica 82:Share this 77:Contribute 22:2021-01-31 2716:Subscribe 2441:smalltalk 2332:smalltalk 2251:The Onion 2172:smalltalk 1958:talk page 628:Britannca 568:wikiality 262:Knowledge 240:a version 2734:Category 2711:Newsroom 2706:Archives 2627:Wired UK 2596:NaBUru38 2580:NaBUru38 2083:Signpost 1932:Obituary 1882:In focus 1828:Previous 1765:Wired UK 1700:'Haaretz 1622:Wired UK 1440:Plos One 1371:Guardian 1226:Episteme 195:Wired UK 134:Facebook 124:LinkedIn 114:Mastodon 68:In focus 20:‎ | 2621:Haaretz 2087:The Man 2068:FeRDNYC 2053:FeRDNYC 2006:FeRDNYC 1887:Opinion 1714:Haaretz 1652:Haaretz 420:Encarta 392:Encarta 385:Encarta 285:Haaretz 189:Haaretz 2648:, and 2510:direct 2485:Bilorv 2353:Bilorv 2306:Bilorv 2286:Bilorv 2099:Bilorv 2091:biting 1917:Humour 1521:YouGov 992:Nature 621:Nature 469:Nature 451:Nature 439:Nature 431:Nature 221:, and 154:Reddit 104:E-mail 2701:About 2657:Slate 2645:Wired 2551:Alsee 2523:WP:AN 2483:). — 2002:worse 1678:Wired 1504:Wired 775:Wired 742:Wired 289:Slate 230:Slate 218:Wired 16:< 2696:Home 2668:talk 2606:talk 2584:talk 2555:talk 2491:talk 2470:talk 2387:talk 2359:talk 2292:talk 2217:talk 2196:talk 2147:talk 2122:talk 2105:talk 2081:The 2057:talk 2032:talk 2010:talk 1992:talk 1836:Next 554:was 394:and 2663:Bri 2314:Sun 1106:78. 746:Vox 643:to 79:— 2736:: 2670:) 2642:, 2636:, 2608:) 2586:) 2557:) 2495:) 2472:) 2389:) 2381:. 2363:) 2296:) 2284:— 2219:) 2198:) 2149:) 2124:) 2109:) 2059:) 2034:) 2012:) 1994:) 1986:. 1826:← 1698:. 1549:^ 950:^ 916:^ 835:^ 744:, 387:. 215:, 209:, 2690:. 2666:( 2604:( 2598:: 2594:@ 2582:( 2553:( 2487:( 2468:( 2444:) 2438:( 2385:( 2355:( 2335:) 2329:( 2288:( 2270:. 2215:( 2194:( 2175:) 2169:( 2145:( 2120:( 2101:( 2070:: 2066:@ 2055:( 2045:: 2041:@ 2030:( 2008:( 1990:( 1975:. 1965:. 1867:) 1863:( 1805:. 1788:. 1771:. 1754:. 1737:. 1720:. 1702:. 1684:. 1658:. 1641:. 1611:. 1594:. 1577:. 1544:. 1527:. 1510:. 1480:. 1463:. 1446:. 1360:. 1317:. 1304:. 1181:. 1151:. 1134:. 1120:' 1070:. 1057:. 1044:. 1031:. 1014:. 995:' 965:. 945:. 899:. 886:. 624:' 612:' 541:' 442:' 415:'

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Knowledge Signpost/2021-01-31/In focus - Knowledge

Index