Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/In the news

Discuss this story

About Wikipedia being the first draft of history, I discussed this with a classmate of mine at Riverside HS's Class of 1990 20th reunion in South Carolina and told her that I was an editor. Jennifer "Jac" Chebatoris, a former entertainment writer for Newsweek and a classmate of mine, was impressed. Chris (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that "Wikipedia Beautifier" also hides maintenance tags.. -- œ ^™ 01:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and it shows them. – ukexpat (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very useful if the New York Times created an exception for incoming links from Wikimedia Foundation projects, like they exception they have for social media websites. It would be even better if they offered free accounts to regular Wikipedia editors, similar to the recent Credo donation. Anyone have good contacts at the Times?--Chaser (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that incoming links from WMF projects are exempt from the paywall like the social media sites are. If someone finds that isn't the case, and that NYT links from the projects are being stopped at the paywall, please let me know! Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the brief note about Wikicountability, "hosted on MediaWiki" is an unfortunate turn of phrase. It is not hosted on foundation servers, it just uses the software. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly reasonable phrase: it isn't hosted by Wikimedia. It is hosted on MediaWiki. This is used widely for web applications: we talk about hosting a site on Wordpress or Django or Apache or all sorts of other server software without implying that the creators of the software are hosting the site. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone says a site is "hosted on WordPress" that would be ambiguous, since it could really be hosted on WordPress.com. Reach Out to the Truth 18:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is accepted technical parlance, but I feel that "hosted on" is an unfortunate choice for a general audience. (Bear in mind that the difference between Wikimedia and MediaWiki is not widely recognized.) Hosting is a highly overloaded concept, and the widest vernacular sense entails involvement by a hosting party. It's not wrong, but "...uses Wikimedia software" would be clearer for a nontechnical audience. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]