tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Gnolia Ma.gnolia 2008-03-22T21:46:55-07:00 sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-rahugubik 2008-03-22T21:46:55-07:00 2008-03-22T21:46:55-07:00 <p>"But Wikipedia is rewriting the marketing script, because it's far and away one of the Web's most potent and powerful affirmation drivers. Once the primary domain of A-list bloggers and Web 2.0 elite, it's now unmistakably penetrated the online masses. Even those who don't use it are impacted by the conversation it shapes, online or off-."</p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-vicarupa 2008-03-15T07:29:27-07:00 2008-03-15T07:29:27-07:00 <p>"When connecting with customers online, you need to open a dialogue with them as individuals. Seth Godin, Sean Parker and Jimmy Wales talk about how blogging and social networking have changed the nature of direct marketing."</p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-chumewocho 2008-02-25T13:53:36-08:00 2008-02-25T13:53:36-08:00 <p>Wonder who is actively spending time on WIkipedia, and why they are? I thought this page on Wikipedia was interesting, not so much by its existence, but by its crappiness. You'd think that of all the pages on the entire site, maybe save the homepage, this one would be incredible. Not so much.</p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-zabina 2008-02-07T22:30:59-08:00 2008-02-07T22:30:59-08:00 <p>It's always concerned me that there is such a small number of people *truly* in control of Wikipedia, specifically because of stories like this one. What do you think? Does Wikipedia have a fundamental flaw or is this just sour grapes and/or paranoia? </p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-wuscoshord 2007-12-14T16:57:53-08:00 2007-12-14T16:57:53-08:00 <p>From the site:: Google is developing an online publishing platform where people can write entries on subjects they know, an idea that's close to Wikipedia's user-contributed encyclopedia but with key differences. The project, which is in an invitation-only beta stage, lets users create clean-looking Web pages with their photo and write entries on, for example, insomnia. Those entries are called "knols" for "unit of knowledge," Google said. Google wants the knols to develop into a deep repository of knowledge, covering topics such as geography, history and entertainment.</p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-whustoshuche 2007-09-04T17:22:06-07:00 2007-09-04T17:22:06-07:00 <p>'How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality" - interesting article about the negatives of journalistic strive for balance. Relevant to previous discussion about wikipedia.</p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-fanekini 2007-08-15T14:54:34-07:00 2007-08-15T14:54:34-07:00 <p>Wait, let me get this straight - Fox wanted to downplay the lawsuit and avoid negative press? I wonder how that's going for them....</p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-pazoqe 2007-08-05T11:10:17-07:00 2007-08-05T11:10:17-07:00 <p>Ha ha ha - why Wikipedia is so much better than a traditional encyclopedia: More cowbell.</p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-whateluze 2007-02-13T20:51:10-08:00 2007-02-13T20:51:10-08:00 <p>Alex proposes a solution for Wikipedia's apparent lack of money, and an inability to fund itself in three months.</p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-cloyoshesi 2007-02-02T20:15:38-08:00 2007-02-02T20:15:38-08:00 <p>HBS releases a case study on Wikipedia.</p> sink tag:ma.gnolia.com,2005:Ma.gnolia-drashacham 2007-01-29T21:59:33-08:00 2007-01-29T21:59:33-08:00 <p>From the article: "More than 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court thus far has never cited Wikipedia.)"</p>