I was recently asked by a journalist -- doing the fact-checking quality journalism aspires to -- what was the basis for the claim that Nupedia had 24 completed articles when it crashed.

"24 articles" is a frequently cited but rarely sourced factoid; I use this number myself in the book. However, it always fascinates me how nuanced things can get when you take apart the question. For example, I was recently asked by a colleague as to whether Ben Franklin started the first public library in America. (I'm very fond of Franklin.) As seen in the Wikipedia article on public libraries , it depends on what you mean by "public" and "library". (But I think beyond academic/historical quibbles it is a safe claim rather than some myth.)

In the case of Nupedia, a July snapshot of Nupedia's "Newest Articles" page actually lists all the articles from the famous first to the last (i.e., "Atonality" to "source code"). It lists 27 total articles in which 3 are briefer versions of longer ones. So in Nupedia's reckoning, that's 27 articles on 24 topics but, in short, I continue to say "24 articles" unless further clarification is needed.

In the book I cite Wikipedia's Nupedia article , which itself cites a 2004 Forbes article . Atypically, I chose to use the Wikipedia reference -- rather than Forbes -- because I find Wikipedia is often a more authoritative source upon itself and its progenitor than a source like Forbes . Why? Because of the article's Talk page where Wikipedians discuss the issue, with a complete reckoning by Michael Snow. The trick for scholarship then is why didn't I cite the Talk page? I'm still unsettled on this point, but I do cite Talk pages if I'm referencing the discussion, but as a factoid, I'm referencing the claim about Nupedia. The wrinkle here is that in its own small way, the claim that Nupedia had 24 complete articles is an unsourced claim -- masked by the Forbes source -- dependent upon original research in the talk page!

this entry posted to social/wikipedia ;
comments (3)

I was recently asked by a journalist -- doing the fact-checking quality journalism aspires to -- what was the basis for the claim that Nupedia had 24 completed articles when it crashed.

"24 articles" is a frequently cited but rarely sourced factoid; I use this number myself in the book. However, it always fascinates me how nuanced things can get when you take apart the question. For example, I was recently asked by a colleague as to whether Ben Franklin started the first public library in America. (I'm very fond of Franklin.) As seen in the Wikipedia article on public libraries , it depends on what you mean by "public" and "library". (But I think beyond academic/historical quibbles it is a safe claim rather than some myth.)

In the case of Nupedia, a July snapshot of Nupedia's "Newest Articles" page actually lists all the articles from the famous first to the last (i.e., "Atonality" to "source code"). It lists 27 total articles in which 3 are briefer versions of longer ones. So in Nupedia's reckoning, that's 27 articles on 24 topics but, in short, I continue to say "24 articles" unless further clarification is needed.

In the book I cite Wikipedia's Nupedia article , which itself cites a 2004 Forbes article . Atypically, I chose to use the Wikipedia reference -- rather than Forbes -- because I find Wikipedia is often a more authoritative source upon itself and its progenitor than a source like Forbes . Why? Because of the article's Talk page where Wikipedians discuss the issue, with a complete reckoning by Michael Snow. The trick for scholarship then is why didn't I cite the Talk page? I'm still unsettled on this point, but I do cite Talk pages if I'm referencing the discussion, but as a factoid, I'm referencing the claim about Nupedia. The wrinkle here is that in its own small way, the claim that Nupedia had 24 complete articles is an unsourced claim -- masked by the Forbes source -- dependent upon original research in the talk page!

this entry posted to social/wikipedia ;
comments (3)

I was recently asked by a journalist -- doing the fact-checking quality journalism aspires to -- what was the basis for the claim that Nupedia had 24 completed articles when it crashed.

"24 articles" is a frequently cited but rarely sourced factoid; I use this number myself in the book. However, it always fascinates me how nuanced things can get when you take apart the question. For example, I was recently asked by a colleague as to whether Ben Franklin started the first public library in America. (I'm very fond of Franklin.) As seen in the Wikipedia article on public libraries , it depends on what you mean by "public" and "library". (But I think beyond academic/historical quibbles it is a safe claim rather than some myth.)

In the case of Nupedia, a July snapshot of Nupedia's "Newest Articles" page actually lists all the articles from the famous first to the last (i.e., "Atonality" to "source code"). It lists 27 total articles in which 3 are briefer versions of longer ones. So in Nupedia's reckoning, that's 27 articles on 24 topics but, in short, I continue to say "24 articles" unless further clarification is needed.

In the book I cite Wikipedia's Nupedia article , which itself cites a 2004 Forbes article . Atypically, I chose to use the Wikipedia reference -- rather than Forbes -- because I find Wikipedia is often a more authoritative source upon itself and its progenitor than a source like Forbes . Why? Because of the article's Talk page where Wikipedians discuss the issue, with a complete reckoning by Michael Snow. The trick for scholarship then is why didn't I cite the Talk page? I'm still unsettled on this point, but I do cite Talk pages if I'm referencing the discussion, but as a factoid, I'm referencing the claim about Nupedia. The wrinkle here is that in its own small way, the claim that Nupedia had 24 complete articles is an unsourced claim -- masked by the Forbes source -- dependent upon original research in the talk page!

this entry posted to social/wikipedia ;
comments (3)

I was recently asked by a journalist -- doing the fact-checking quality journalism aspires to -- what was the basis for the claim that Nupedia had 24 completed articles when it crashed.

"24 articles" is a frequently cited but rarely sourced factoid; I use this number myself in the book. However, it always fascinates me how nuanced things can get when you take apart the question. For example, I was recently asked by a colleague as to whether Ben Franklin started the first public library in America. (I'm very fond of Franklin.) As seen in the Wikipedia article on public libraries , it depends on what you mean by "public" and "library". (But I think beyond academic/historical quibbles it is a safe claim rather than some myth.)

In the case of Nupedia, a July snapshot of Nupedia's "Newest Articles" page actually lists all the articles from the famous first to the last (i.e., "Atonality" to "source code"). It lists 27 total articles in which 3 are briefer versions of longer ones. So in Nupedia's reckoning, that's 27 articles on 24 topics but, in short, I continue to say "24 articles" unless further clarification is needed.

In the book I cite Wikipedia's Nupedia article , which itself cites a 2004 Forbes article . Atypically, I chose to use the Wikipedia reference -- rather than Forbes -- because I find Wikipedia is often a more authoritative source upon itself and its progenitor than a source like Forbes . Why? Because of the article's Talk page where Wikipedians discuss the issue, with a complete reckoning by Michael Snow. The trick for scholarship then is why didn't I cite the Talk page? I'm still unsettled on this point, but I do cite Talk pages if I'm referencing the discussion, but as a factoid, I'm referencing the claim about Nupedia. The wrinkle here is that in its own small way, the claim that Nupedia had 24 complete articles is an unsourced claim -- masked by the Forbes source -- dependent upon original research in the talk page!

this entry posted to social/wikipedia ;
comments (3)