A great read, but important too for understanding why some parts of the internet are weak for fact-checking:

If there's a simple lesson in all of this, it's that hoaxes tend to thrive in communities which exhibit high levels of trust. But on the Internet, where identities are malleable and uncertain, we all might be well advised to err on the side of skepticism.

Cutting to the interesting bit of this mobile application:

Previous versions of our application used Google Maps for the nearby view. This has now been replaced with OpenStreetMap - an open and free source of Map Data that has been referred to as ‘Wikipedia for Maps.’ This closely aligns with our goal of making knowledge available in a free and open manner to everyone. This also means we no longer have to use proprietary Google APIs in our code, which helps it run on the millions of cheap Android handsets that are purely open source and do not have the proprietary Google applications.

Wikipedia on the desktop already appears not to use Google Maps.

Anyone with Web access can edit Wikipedia. However, only a small percentage of women take advantage of that privilege.

A look at the encyclopedia's <a href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Editor_Survey_Report_-_April_2011.pdf&amp;page=3">demographics</a> shows that 91% of its active editors are men, meaning just nine percent are women.

In commemoration of Women's History Month, a group of Wikipedia editors – both male and female – had a frank, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-12/Women_and_Wikipedia">round-table discussion</a> about how to make steps toward closing that gender gap. The chat was organised and written up by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch">Sarah Stierch</a>, a Wikimedia Community Fellow who aims to bring more women and women&rsquo;s content to Wikipedia.

Simply brilliant. If you only read one article today, make it this one.

Britannica [nearly] went bankrupt in 1996, long before Wikipedia was a crowdsourced gleam in Jimmy Wales’ open-access eye. In 1990, the company had $650m in revenue. In 1996, it was being sold off in toto for $135m. What happened in between was Encarta.

Not because Encarta made Microsoft money (it didn’t), or because Britannica didn’t develop comparable products for CD-ROM and the web (they totally did, with the first CD-ROM encyclopedia in 1989 and Britannica Online in 1994). Instead, Encarta was an inexpensive, multimedia, not-at-all comprehensive encyclopedia that helped Microsoft sell Windows PCs to families. And once you had a PC in the living room or den where the encyclopedia used to be, it was all over for Mighty Britannica.

Via Michael Brunton-Spall: Wikipedia reveals why you're seeing different ads for its fundraising efforts this year, and how the old ones did. It's A/B testing, out in the open.

Jimmy Wales's comment in linking to this: "Remember the moment when you saw this map and understood what is about to happen in Africa.."

See people anonymously editing Wikipedia entries almost in real time. (Via @realouisewener who is.. the real Louise Wener).