Friday, November 17, 2006

Wikipedia is an authoritative source ... way or no way?

Everyone has their own opinion, and nowhere is that more evident than in the press. Exhibit A:
Some articles hype as better than Wikipedia, and some don’t. Tessa Wegert writing for ClickZ started her article by saying, “If your idea of a comprehensive research site is Wikipedia, you might want to familiarize yourself with” (The article also gives props to blufr and challenges marketers to use it in a creative way for their campaigns.) Bambi Francisco, however, points out that while Wikipedia updated Milton Friedman’s biography on the day of his death, did not.

There were some late-to-the-party articles also floating around this week. Last week’s acquisition of FAQ Farm was mentioned in WriteNews and the month old deal with The New York Times appeared in RedOrbit – check out their tagline, “breaking news.”

In the blog world this week a researcher did some research on research sites and named as a “worthy tool.” We got a similar mention as a “neat” reference tool from Alan Le.


Did you know that blufr is ranked #2 for Most Popular Web 2.0 Apps? It is and blogger hotgirlswearsunglasses finds no shame in mentioning that she wastes the company’s time by playing the addictive trivia game. Another fan believes blufr is the answer to conversation lulls and Phyllis also gave blufr a shout out this week as her favorite site.

No comments: