Comments on: Guardian and Times the most cited UK papers on wikipedia http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/ Where to find Malcolm Coles, reviews, and tips on how to do things I couldn't do. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:22:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Malcolm Coles http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/#comment-3961 Malcolm Coles Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:34:53 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=2302#comment-3961 Jen - having spent some time looking round your blog, it appears genuine. This makes you the one and only person ever to have left a blog comment beginning "Hi, I find your blog very informative" that wasn't a spammer... Jen - having spent some time looking round your blog, it appears genuine. This makes you the one and only person ever to have left a blog comment beginning "Hi, I find your blog very informative" that wasn't a spammer...

]]> By: David Gerard http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/#comment-3952 David Gerard Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:35:02 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=2302#comment-3952 Jem - It's because any given news story will be covered everywhere, so they tend to pick the sites that are decently written and keep their stuff online. The BBC is not a commercial organisation, it's all about the content, so stuff will tend to stay up and only lack for quality from sloppiness and bad editing rather than proprietor's commercial interest. The Guardian is very proactively on the web - I believe Guardian Unlimited is in fact profitable. The Independent and FT lock articles behind a paywall quickly. This makes them less useful to people researching after a week. If Murdoch really does paywall all his titles, he's just given away the entire web audience to the Guardian and BBC! Jem - It's because any given news story will be covered everywhere, so they tend to pick the sites that are decently written and keep their stuff online.

The BBC is not a commercial organisation, it's all about the content, so stuff will tend to stay up and only lack for quality from sloppiness and bad editing rather than proprietor's commercial interest.

The Guardian is very proactively on the web - I believe Guardian Unlimited is in fact profitable.

The Independent and FT lock articles behind a paywall quickly. This makes them less useful to people researching after a week.

If Murdoch really does paywall all his titles, he's just given away the entire web audience to the Guardian and BBC!

]]> By: jen http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/#comment-3942 jen Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:55:46 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=2302#comment-3942 Hi, I find your blog very informative and is especially useful for someone like me, who is trying to carve a career for myself in online journalism. I am a Guardian reader first and foremost, but I have never really considered what newspaper website I find most trustworthy and good for backing up points with. Hi, I find your blog very informative and is especially useful for someone like me, who is trying to carve a career for myself in online journalism.

I am a Guardian reader first and foremost, but I have never really considered what newspaper website I find most trustworthy and good for backing up points with.

]]> By: Jem Stone http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/#comment-3938 Jem Stone Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:12:19 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=2302#comment-3938 Hi Malcolm. Really enjoying all these lists and data and comparison charts. Encouraged me to look at Quarkbase myself and obviously (i work there) had a look at bbc.co.uk which has 256,256 inbound links from Wikipedia (not all citations ?). Presumably a high proportion of these are BBC news articles. So do Wikipedians "trust" BBC News twice as much as The Guardian or any national newspaper? ;) Hi Malcolm. Really enjoying all these lists and data and comparison charts.

Encouraged me to look at Quarkbase myself and obviously (i work there) had a look at bbc.co.uk which has 256,256 inbound links from Wikipedia (not all citations ?). Presumably a high proportion of these are BBC news articles. So do Wikipedians "trust" BBC News twice as much as The Guardian or any national newspaper? ;)

]]>