![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Look, I have no opinion on this, but the edit warring has to stop. Please discuss proposed changes to the infobox's "Author:" attribute here before making them. =David( talk)( contribs) 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
why? Mariofan1000 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
After all, in a sense, wikipedia is talking about itself. Therefore it is possible that the wiki is conscious, and should be construed as an "I". Xhin Give Back Our Membership! 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
What was the first article created on Wikipedia. I have had a look around but I have only found editors/articles from July 01. 134.148.5.119 09:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The audio file really needs to be updated. Any volunteers? Randomblue 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed recently that google has started giving brief summaries of the contents of wiki pages instead of the first sentence or two from the page itself as is usually the case with google search results. As an example, searching for "Arabic Language" the search result for wiki is "Wikipedia article, with links to other articles on Modern Standard and Classical Arabic, as well as other varieties of the language." Is this a google thing or is it a wikipedia thing? TheStripèdOne 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia fork redirects to this article. I think the article should say something more about the over 500 Wikipedia forks. Should we use Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks as a reference for that number, or is that too self-referential? -- 75.48.165.135 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the following statement as it has been tagged as needing a source for several months:
If anyone can add a source for this, feel free to re-add it. — An gr 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I support your decision -- Youhavenolife 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Many language versions of Wikipedia are free content, while others, such as the English version, include non-free material.-- 71.234.97.27 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Was discussing irony of criticism against wikipedia for lack of proper citations (had a cite on that XD) went to visit the site listed and was unable to access the page. Someone should look into this, it managed to get wikipedia nearly banned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphoray ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should let people upload music to certain sites that the music would aply to. Then People could listen to music while there reading.
Following is too petty for article (a minor politican raising an unimportant question, of minimal relevance to this article) so I think it should be removed:
On 29 September, 2007, Italian politician Franco Grillini raised a parliamentary question with the Minister of Cultural Resources and Activities about the necessity of freedom of panorama. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Wikipedia, "the seventh most consulted website" to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues.
Thanks.--
82.148.54.193
20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or did the wikipedia globe (right above teh search bar) change? 76.109.11.127 02:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)chewka
Is it just me or exist two version of the english wikip edia? Exist it an american wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordbecket ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Dsmccohen 09:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I am finding that majority of articles ( for ex MoveOn.org articles, Al Gore article ) have a clear liberal slant - yet, I could not find a single page with a conservative slant.
Which leads me to wonder if Wikipedia is primarily a medium for expressing liberal views? - Not that there is anything wrong with it ;) TwakTwik 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
A fun project to do would be to use WikiScanner to location map the IP addresses of all changes and then do a cross look up of blue and red states. TwakTwik 02:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Another example would be Bill Clinton's page, specifically around impeachment section TwakTwik 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, its predominantly democratic :) TwakTwik 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There's an incidence of the word "a" before a vowel (the word "internet") in the final sentence of the fourth paragraph. I'd fix it, but the article is locked, and I'm a wikinoob, alas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.48.35 ( talk) 05:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This is just vanity and self-worship. It's even classed as a "good article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.13.209 ( talk) 07:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia under the USA law since the Wikimedia (and main server) locates in the USA? Thanks. -- Manop - TH 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The word "over" is repeated twice in only two sentences, one succeeding the other.
As of September 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 8.29 million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.41 billion words for all Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia edition passed the 2,000,000 article mark on September 9, 2007, and as of October 14, 2007 it had over 2,047,000 articles consisting of over 890,000,000 words.
Randomblue 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There used to be a section named "history" on this article but it has been vandalized by TheMarioManiac on May 14th, 2007 and it was badly reverted (deletion actually, but the person probably didn't know it was a real section before being vandalized). Then a new similar section ("Founding") has been written on July 6th, 2007. I think this section "history" is really worthy, so can anybody merge it with the new section "founding"? 16@r 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
great site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.117.152 ( talk) 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It even works with "fuckeduppedia! OMG!-- Press208 02:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The article presents the number of wikipedia's words. Is it possible to inform us and the number of its UNIQUE words? -- Kaseluris, Nikos 06:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please unlock this page? I would like to add some sarcastic criticism of Wikipedia along with some off-colour sexual humour. Thank you. -- 24.235.231.206 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't there a separate article on Wikipedians - saying some welcome new members, others do this or that, etc. Now I can't find it! Expected to see on the See also but not there. Any ideas what the article title is I'm looking for? DionysosProteus 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It was the latter I was looking for. Any reason that's not on the see also list? DionysosProteus 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Though it might be true indeed that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by left-wing vandals, the citing of Newsmax as a source is just sloppy. Newsmax is known to be reactionary and sensational. I read the article referred to and most of it reads like an editorial, as the article does a poor job indeed of making the case that liberals control the Wikipedia domain. I removed citation 69 as well as the sentence preceding it.
For your enjoyment, the final sentence of the article, "Most people accept information that is at their fingertips and don't take the time to check original sources. Thus the information superhighway offers everyone access to the same often inaccurate and biased information."
Asaspades9 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What would happen if the hard drives holding part of wikipedia crashed and failed or some natural cause such as a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or fire destroyed the serevers holding the information on wikipedia? Or someone purposely physically vandalized the hard drives storing Wikipedia? Do they back up all the information as it is added in another place so if one server failed not all of the information would be lost?-- 71.234.111.157 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the article about wikipedia I think there are some neutrality issues particularly regarding the section about reliability and bias. It seems as though it has under represented the argument that these topics are valid and over represented the infalliability of wikipedia. It also is troubling that in outlining the argument the definitions used are ones that users in the wikipedia community created (hyperlinked) Matt1741 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) rather than allowing for an actual argument to take place in which definitions could be agreed upon by both sides.
This may be an article that ought to be reviewed.
Love the rest of the site. Matt1741 10.25.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1741 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is an article on criticism about wikipedia. Wikipedia is practically anti-advertising itself. AbsoluteZero255 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There may be some structural problems though in the way that Wikipedia is using all the methods that are suspect to describe the suspect problems.
Matt1741
15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I am curious to know why Wikipedia still has no "did you mean ____?" links when I search for something and accidently spell it wrong. Why is this? Has it not yet been suggested that Wikipedia include such a tool? Heretic 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the way the three separate Wikipedia related templates still exclude some of the major articles - reliability, criticism and in culture are all left out. Is there any way we could fit them in somewhere, or rearrange the templates somehow to do so? We could even merge the lot into one super template, perhaps 'Wikipedia and related projects' or 'Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation'. The problem there is that all the unrelated stuff is included if you just want something like the small Wikimedia projects version on e.g. Wikiquote. I don't know of any way to use only part of a template if desired, though it might be possible... Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Take your pick: Wikipedia community or Wikipedia Community. To which should they redirect? Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We need an image of Jimbo here - the article is incomplete without it. Take your pick. Any suggestions? We used to have Image:Jimbo-wales---fosdem-2005.jpg IIRC, which I suggested be cropped, though that may have been another article. How about Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg or Image:Jimbo_Wales_in_France_cropped.jpg? There are two others like the former as well. Richard001 07:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Rules say that a person or an entity should refrain from writing an article about oneself and leave this task for someone else to ensure objectivity and neutrality, so how could the wikipedia community describe their project by themselves, they should leave that for other encyclopedias like Britannica or whatever rather than this utter selfishness.
Tyranopediac 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't watch this article, but I've seen the question above raised three times on this talk page alone, and we have 16 archives. Are there any others besides this that get frequently asked? I note that a lot of busy pages are using FAQs, such as evolution, intelligent design etc. Perhaps this is something we could consider. Richard001 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for all these discussions, but I feel we need better information on the number of Wikipedians too. Often quoted is the number of editors, but this statistic is vague and sure to be misleading. I'd like to know how many active contributors we have, and more statistics on this in general. Does anyone know if/where such information could be found? It would also be possible to ascertain a reasonable estimate based on a sampling of existing users accounts, looking at what fraction are currently active. Richard001 09:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Just reading reliability of Wikipedia at the moment and I think 'quality of Wikipedia' might be a slightly better reflection of its scope. Comments welcome at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article name. Richard001 10:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I think that Wikipedia has a few of it's facts wrong! By the way- did Google write an article about how good it was?
No! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.240.47 ( talk) 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
For the first time, Alexa stats now ranks WP as the 8th most visited website. -- Camptown 09:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
How does one edit a page on Wikipedia? I know it must be simple, but I simply can't get my arms around it.-- Eventadmitbud 03:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not following.-- Eventadmitbud 03:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia wants everything to be free and GFDL, then why is its own logo not even GFDL? It seems very hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me Smiling Incorporated ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a generally accepted policy page entitled WP:Idiots Can Edit but I can't find it anymore! Is there any change in this respect? Is Wikipedia no longer the free encyclopedia that everyone can edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.131 ( talk) 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I edit this page? Chrissie
Could somebody please add an interwiki to zea:Wikipedia? Thanks :) -- Ooswesthoesbes 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? -- Ye Olde Luke 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Why there is no Larry Sanger's picture in the article? He is a co-founder, he gave the name to the project, he gave the wiki idea. There is a Jimbo picture. Is this a NPOV? -- NeutralPoint 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I did ctrl+F and find no mention of Essjay or Seigenthaler. Any controversy on wikipedia with its own article should be accessible from this page, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
What is that strange grey-y/blue liney object used as the background on every page? Why does the Arabic wikipedia have a different one? -- 86.135.216.24 01:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, I never noticed that was a book before. Gee, I've only been using Wikipedia for three years, too... — An gr 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably most alredy know, I just tiped en.vikipedia.org and browser opened some adult or something like that, site. w and v is quite the same;)
I've noticed that there has been many acts of vandalism upon this page, and most likely, this post will be vandalised sometime in the future. Is it possible to semi-protect this page, as this seems to be causing a bit of trouble. For example, as I was scanning the history of the page, I realized that reverting the article to its non-vandalised state would delete new editions to this article, forcing one to manually sort out vandalism. Anyways, I'm sure a non-registered person who has a great suggestion would be able to wait a few days of registering. Rfts ( talk) 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC) NO VANDALISM!
How does Wikipedia know for sure that two articles are about the same topic in different languages?-- 24.166.56.195 ( talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Before I assume that this is the very vandalism it seems to be referring to (i.e. "random letters"), will someone tell me if there is such thing as a pletter? I will remove it soon. Cuindless ( talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Have the web server automatically change the following static text in this article every 5 minutes:
"As of December 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 9 ¼ million articles in 253 languages"
"As of <=TODAY()>, Wikipedia haS approximately <=TOTALNUMBEROFARTICLES()> articles in 253 languages...."
What do you think about this? Please comment to me on my Talk: page and thanks kindly.
--
Vid2vid (
talk)
21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia (IPA: /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/, /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdiə/, /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ or /ˌwiːkiˈpeɪdiə/) (Audio (U.S.) (help·info)) is a free,[4] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, it is the largest, fastest growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet.[5][6]
As of December 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 9 ¼ million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.74 billion words for all Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia edition passed the 2,000,000 article mark on September 9, 2007, and as of January 30, 2008 it had over 2,200,000 articles consisting of over 957,000,000 words.[2] Wikipedia's articles have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and the vast majority of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. Having steadily risen in popularity since its inception,[1] it currently ranks among the top ten most-visited websites worldwide.[7]
Critics have questioned Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, citing its open nature.[8] The criticism is centered on its susceptibility to vandalism, such as the insertion of profanities or random letters into articles, and the addition of spurious or unverified information;[9] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies;[10] and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[11] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[12][13]
In addition to being an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia has received major media attention as an online source of breaking news as it is constantly updated.[14][15] When Time Magazine recognized "You" as their Person of the Year 2006, praising the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, Wikipedia was the first particular "Web 2.0" service mentioned, followed by YouTube and MySpace.[16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.1.27 ( talk) 19:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Wikipedia is listed in the 2008 Guiness Book of World Records as the world's largest encyclopedia. Should this record be mentioned one of the Wikipedia-related articles? Can the book be used as the reference or is the record too obvious? Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How much bookshelf space would a printed version of Wikipedia take up? I calculated it at 72 miles (figuring all the books in one shelf). Here's how I did it:
As of November 30, 2007, this page reported Wikipedia contained 916,000,000 words. I figured only 5 characters per word (but actually believe it could be higher). A standard 8.5" x 11" page contains 2,000 characters per side, or 4,000 characters for each sheet of paper, resulting in 1,145,000 sheets of paper. I measured and found 1,000 pages of 20# paper takes up at least 4 inches, or 4,580,000 inches. There are 63,360 inches in a mile. That's 72.285 miles. It would actually be longer since I didn't figure width of each book's front and back covers.
I am open to other assumptions (the number of characters including spaces per word, for example).
And all accessible via a computer and the Web or in the palm of your hand by using the new Kindle electronic book. Ed 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But that 200 feet contains a lot of poor quality stuff. I prefer having an editorial filter. Life is too short... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.126.219 ( talk) 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i am thinking about how "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" would be translated into Mongolian in the Mongolian Wikipedia. What is the exact meaning of "the free"? Personally, I think it is free, because no one have to pay for what they read. Or is it free, because everyone can access freely? Please help me to determine the right meaning. Bilguun.alt 05:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been revealed that the editors of Wikipedia use a secret mailing list to ensure that the content on Wikipedia remains inline with their liking. Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
(ps: Would love to see the discussion happening on the secret mailing list about this proposal :) )
TwakTwik 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
After a discussion as to the impact of Wikipedia on the world and our everyday society. My co-workers and I came to the agreement that Wikipedia was perhaps the greatest innovation in information availability since the invention of the printing press. And as the printing press could be used to spread knowledge but it could also be used to spread propaganda and lies. As Wikipedia grows in volume of information and becomes more and more prevalent in our society as the best source for any information you could ever want or need it has the potential to become very similar to the "Ministry of Truth". Clearly we are a long way off from the "Ministry of Truth" described in George Orwell's book 1984, but potentially we have the power collective as a society to change any fact historical, literary or scientific..... Or if it was taken over by a government agency of coarse. :-P
With the power of Wikipedia I wouldn't be surprised if a world government sometime in the near future doesn't forge their own private Wikipedia (and block the real deal) and populate it with only the information they deem acceptable. And a true "Ministry of Truth" is born.
Thoughts?
-- John hmstr ( talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Almost anyone can edit Wikipedia. I highly doubt everyone with access to the World Wide Web would allow for Wikipedia to become some totalitarian enterprise.-- Bricktoday ( talk) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw in the article that they have hundreds of Linux computers running a dedicated server. I want to know how much memory is used to keep this site up. I know YouTube has quite a few terabytes. This surely must have quite a few. -KT- KT529 ( talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. But, why only 30 Gb? They said they had many Linux computers in the US. 30 Gb is less than ONE good computers memory. Sorta doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KT529 ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being late with this:
Wikipedia in culture → Wikipedia#Cultural significance.
We don't need an edit for every "ooh, Sideshow Bob mentioned Wikipedia!" Such trivia is discouraged per WP:5P, but it is a fact that Wikipedia is a cultural phenomenom. We should, then, focus on connective trivia on how its made an impact with an example. Such is the case with "Inaccuracy: The Onion; Source of information: The Office; Meta-humour: xkcd", which is in the article. Will ( talk) 13:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it would help the community if at the bottom of the articles it showed who posted them? Then we could more directly communicate any errors to be fixed (if they're an active user). -KT-
-killertank529- ( talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the following disclaimer should be added:
Wikipedia uses multiple tiers of control for editors. Senior editors trusted by Jimmy Wales are given permission to protect articles from edits that they do not like. Wikipedia has an informal hierarchy of power that ensures that none of the content in Wikipedia will contradict with the views of the senior editors. TwakTwik ( talk) 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I have re-added the primary sources tag to the Language editions section, after it was removed with the comment that it "looked ok". I disagree with this assertion: everything in the section is cited to primary sources. The only secondary source discusses the topic of the section (Language editions) only in a trivial manner, and is not sufficient. This is a problem throughout the whole of this article, but starting small seems like a good idea. User:Krator ( t c) 13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? -- Ye Olde Luke 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Why would wikipedia have an article on itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PwnersRule ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- PwnersRule ( talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)PwnersRule
80.165.181.235 ( talk) 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC) I kind of disaggree with the artical that screenreading technology can't be used with wikipedia, if you know your screenreader then you'll do fine, at least I do and I'm fully blind. Of course it depends on which screenreader you use, but over all I'd say wikipedia is accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.165.181.235 ( talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
A discussion about another wiki brought up an important issue. Unlike other text under the GFDL I don't download the whole thing before making modifications. Before Wikipedia one would copy a document, edit it on my computer, and then distribute the modified version.
I believe there should be some information about the mechanism that places contributions under the GFDL. Has anyone ever published a legal opinion that explains why having a little note at the bottom of the edit page places my contribution under the GFDL?
What allowed the content under the Bomis license to become GFDL? I'm assuming it was a donation. Did someone write a letter saying the following information is now under the GFDL?
-- Gbleem ( talk) 06:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the references at the end pf the article points to a non-existent page. [1] It points to an article in The Washington Post, which is no longer there. Maybe there's some sort of archive we can point to? Not being familiar with that website, I took no action. -- Ruijoel ( talk) 14:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has an external link to wikipedia.com. Though I agree that it is important to document the original URL of wikipedia, I don't think this should be an external link. When the link is clicked it just sends me to wikipedia.org, and I am already there. If someone who is able to edit this page wouldn't mind, it would be great if that link was removed. RedSox2008 ( talk) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In the intrest of neutralism, I think there ought to be a criticisms section on this article. Llamadog903 ( talk) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The criticism should include the sites hasty move to delete articles. Reference: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=199409
Here's my mild criticism for the people a wikipedia. Though I truly enjoy the service I find the method used to solicit donations to be quite petty. Getting slammed at every page to please donate a person could find themselves under the impression that wikipedia is hurting for funds to run the website. Looking at their donations page however it is clearly not the case. I find it hard to imagine that a lot of staff is needed to run wikipedia as it is completely built by it's viewers. Staff are needed to police the articles (as I'm sure this one will be pulled) but I hardly see their being a shortage of funds for them looking at the volume of donations received by the website. Beyond that, new hardware and software as well as other expenses seem to all be more than covered looking at the donations page. So where's all the money going? I can make a guess but will keep that to myself. Anyway, having a donations page is a great idea. But do you really have to act like you are in such need of funds when you are receiving ridiculous amounts of money already? Is the wiki team sick of flying business and considering a private jet? Does the head office seem a little boring and making trump tours look more your style? Please. You want donations and you're getting them. Stop acting like your going broke because no one is buying it. If anything, seeing that banner at the top of every page makes me want to donate even less then before. It's just greedy. My advice is that you stop before someone does an expose on you guys and where their "donations" are going. Seems like something I may see on dateline someday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.101.146 ( talk • contribs) 28 December 2007
If you want to know what the money is planned to be spent on, see the image below:
What must be understood is that the Wikipedia database is very large. A database dump of just the top revisions of all the pages on Wikipedia, in an archive file is six gigabytes large. Multiply in all revisions, all wikipedias, your compression ratio, and you're talking terabytes upon terabytes, not to mention the backups. On top of that, they need memory, processing, bandwidth just to make Wikipedia run as smoothly as it does today. Will ( talk) 02:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The license of that screenshot bothers me. I thought this was a free encyclopedia. It really has to be changed or removed! -- 212.247.27.80 ( talk) 13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
has the icon that appears before the adress in IE7 changed from a W to some multicoloured thing D A V I D C A T 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of articles out there about our WP experiment. I am wondering what the consensus is for inclusion of any of these articles in an external links section here? For example, here is one, albeit, of a more controversial nature, but still interesting: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ Giovanni33 ( talk) 09:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find any info about it. Where can I find it? Is it Debian and if so what version? Do all servers run on the same Linux distribution? Tommy ( talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media and Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.64.213 ( talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
this is why people should not trust wikipedia beacause a girl who is not in her 20s is writting this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.246.217 ( talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
== cuba == cabana
Sorry? The age of the authors has no relation to the reliability of the work. Please see Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Trustworthiness. -- Puchiko ( Talk- email) 13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I would trust some teenage girl more than some cia agent. -- Taku ( talk) 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the password to edit Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunchscale\Lobbykneew ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is no longer in the "current_edition." The correct hyperlink is: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=209408 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.253.42 ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Nbeniwal for the details [2] of Wikipedia's mention by the Supreme Court of India. I don't think it warrants being in the introduction though, so I am moving it here for now:
The in Commr. of Customs, Bangalore vs. ACER India Pvt. Ltd (Citation: 2007(12)SCALE581) stated that: We have referred to wikipedia, as the learned Counsel for the parties relied thereupon. It is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic. It may be useful to note that observations of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in India.
Once the citation is re-formatted as a footnote (is this available online?), I think this could be included briefly in the Criticism section. Open4D ( talk) 12:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the word 'Wikipedia' be italicized? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia is a work, and names of works should be italicized (like titles of books, albums, magazines, films and tv series are.) — Jhn * 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It depends what standars you are using, if you use the APA's strict standard for example, Wikipedia would only be italicised in certain conditions. I personaly think its not worth bothering with really.
Julienrl ( talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Founders are listed...then another paragraph lists them again, stating what each brought to the project. What each brought to project should be moved up, after first mention of founders, and the redundant paragraph deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.2.27 ( talk) 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Many schools don't like wikipedia because they think that the information is false. I wanted to see if that was true. So I edited (added) a sentence to Japan saying, "It is common knowledge that Japan is the largest country in the world." That edit was corrected within seconds. Should schools accept wikipedia as a reliable source of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan G14 ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: The following text was added into the middle of Ivan's post by User:86.163.172.151. To avoid making it seem like Ivan wrote this, I moved the information here. The inserted text read: Yes but... Wikipedia is edited by people without any knowledge other than that which they can confirrm [sic] though [sic] other internet searches. And, [sic] if you edit any living person's profile in a complimentary way (however flattering), it remains- but disagree with these compliments and you either need a citation or you're a vandal. Wikipedia is a lowbrow nerds' half accurate fact book designed by the poorly educated for the poorly educated. At least it keeps the editors/administratos [sic] /whatever they call themselves away from kiddie-fiddling for afew [sic] hours. (COME ON CENSOR ME IF YOU"RE GUILTY- 1st one to "revert" is the paedophile) (end of inserted text). Comment moved by Puchiko ( Talk- email) 21:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I will start with a bit of context, please bear with me. I was reading an article about hackers earlier today and they were talking about a 10 000$ fine,then I watched a movie about the civil war and tehy talk about 25$, 300$ and 1000$ and it got me thinking... how much is that worth?! Wouldin't it be possible to have pages show and automaticaly update a nominal value? For example, if someone got fined 1000 in 1977, it would be shown as
"1000 $(equivalent to 2000$ today)"
or if the fine was 1000$ in 2000 it would say:
"1000$ (equivalent to 1180$ today)"
and the multiplyer could be updated yearly but variable would keep the same name so that the algorithm would not have to be changed. The article would not be touched but would be automaticaly updated. This way we could have a table of multiplyers for different years\countries updated yearly or more if wanted and you just have to insert the line of code that applies to your contry (since inflation enormously varies from one country to an other).
Along the same lines, could we not have an automatic conversion to USD and\or €? (Being canadian I know that I would like to see it in CAD$ but hey, who am I kidding lol)
Julienrl ( talk) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Julien feb 11 2008
Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of GNU/Linux servers, 300 in Florida, 26 in Amsterdam and 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility in Soul.[48] Wikipedia employed a single server until 2004, when the server setup was expanded into a distributed multitier architecture. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache HTTP Server, and seven Squid cache servers.
220.133.92.72 ( talk) 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Since nearly all the terms related to Wikipedia (Wikimedia, MediaWiki, etc.) are easily confused by people finding out the " wikisphere", I was thinking of the idea of creating a new article titled Wikipedia (terminology) similar to British Isles (terminology) ( British Isles (disambiguation) is a redirect) and Netherlands (terminology) (and Netherlands (disambiguation)). But I prefer to request for comments before creating it because it's useless to write something if it's deleted a few while after. So what do you think of it? 16@r ( talk) 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Should there be mention of the fact that because it is so unreliable as a source of citation, WP is banned in most UK Universities? Does the same apply to other countries? Mike0001 ( talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
For convenience of the others, I cite Prof Wrong's addition:
There are several problems with it. The first sentence is a general fact; like a sky is blue. The article needs to contain information specific to Wikipedia. Maybe there are so many, too many, people who don't even know this general fact, but we are not here to preach them. This also applies to the first part of the second sentence. Finally, the last part of the second sentence is problematic because it's not specific enough. Like writing on a movie review, stating that many people didn't like the movie is not encyclopedic.
Having said this, I think this is an important point that the article hasn't adequately discusses. We all know, anecdotally, that many students (outside US) consult Wikipedia too and universities or professors have policies on the use. In short, the point is important, but the addition that made the point wasn't good. -- Taku ( talk) 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
How long does it take from me becoming an editor (this week) to being able to be a full administrator on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangola ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
any1 noticed sum tard has called us cock sucking deuch-bags on the description of the site thingy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki443556 ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"As of December 2007 !!!!you guys are cock sucking douche bags.," -- vandalism to be removed -- How can this happen is the page is protected?? 216.194.0.237 ( talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to mention a study done that found that about one percent of Wikipedia's contributors control most of the content, a good reference is an article at Slate here. — 134.139.135.84 ( talk) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
When I typed Wikipedia into the search bar on the left hand side I read for a minute and then came down to the 'Reliability and bias' section. There I found a really small spelling error that should be corrected. In the first paragraph of that headline is dispalyed here:
The Italic text is techonally a grammer error. I tried to fix it myself but the is a Wiki Personel Only Editing thing I guess. Just though I'd give you the heads up.
Ridem92
I propose that we merge the above article into here. While I believe the topic (Deletionism v.s. Inclusionism) is a valid encyclopedic topic because of the media coverage, I don't think it merits the detailed standalone article. The issue is not currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article, which is not good at all, and it seems to make sense to discuss it here in a succinct manner. -- Taku ( talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC) I mean the problem with the above article has to do with its "proportion". The "deletionism v.s. inclusionism" is a subtopic of the more general topic on "Wikipedia community", which is discussed in the content and internal section in this article. Giving far larger space for the subtopic rather than its parent topics makes little sense. Of course, one could argue that "Wikipedia community" (which is currently redirected to here) merits a standalone article, but that's another issue. General speaking, I think we need to have the less amount of text discussing Wikipedia and its related topics than we currently have. -- Taku ( talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody want to tell me why Vikipedia redirects to the Wikipedia article? Joelster ( talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
why do you need links and stuff when you have everything you need to know on the wikipedia site? just have the makers edit this and ur done, all facts are down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.235.205 ( talk) 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The last name of Aaron Swartz appears to be misspelled in entry no. 52. (A moment ago I corrected the same mistake (and added a hyperlink) in the section titled "Content and internal structure.") Fagiolonero ( talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a posting by Larry, I am wondering if we can use it as a source.... according to this letter, wikipedia was his idea and Jimmy was opposed to it initially. [ [8]] Sethie ( talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
i am sorry for vandliseing a good advance wars artical please accept my apology
and could you please tell me who sent my warning letter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.73.96 ( talk) 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are two different versions used, although the differences are only minor ones. -- 72.75.52.243 ( talk) 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the eponymous wikipedia entry should have a section on style, addressing the style in which wikipedia articles are written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwinslow s ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That's dumb no one cares what style the info's in as long as it's there and it's accurate. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.190.172.3 (
talk)
17:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This talk page has 69 KB (10460 words). This could cause a lot of technical issues so I think we should WP:Archive this talk page. I'd use the subpage method, cut-and-paste procedure. I'd leave the threads started in March 2008 still here, because they might still be active. What do you think? Note: If there are no objections by Wednesday, I will perform the archiving. Puchiko ( Talk- email) 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is what I see when I look at the article on Wikipedia:
http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii57/Moe_Epsilon/?action=view¤t=screenshot1.png
You can click to enlarge the image. No, that is not vandalism. The image shows the beginning of the header, Wikipedia, but then has several spaces of white until the infobox has passed. The text "(IPA: /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/, /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdiə...." immediately starts after the infobox. Is there some way to fix that? — Κaiba 12:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't this a featured article, I mean It's been on here for such a long time and seems okay... LOTRrules ( talk) 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The more important articles on wikipedia often have the padlock symbol, meaning that the ordinary user can't edit them. For example, today, I looked at the articles on "global warming", "Brezhnev", "The Soviet Union" and "wikipedia". I think I'm right in saying that all of these articles had the padlock symbol. A "no rules" version of wikipedia (i.e everyone allowed to edit anything) would be interesting, although no doubt some of its articles would be turbulent and ever-changing. It would also be interesting if several versions of an article were allowed; e.g. "Margaret Thatcher Article A", "Margaret Thatcher Article B", "Margaret Thatcher Article C", etc. Different points of view might emerge in the different versions. Another point: the writing style of wikepedia articles is worth commenting on; it's a rather unique style. [Martin] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.36.179 ( talk) 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone at my school had the smart idea to vandalize a post and now we cant edit wikipedia at my school could you lift this ban somehow because i love to edit things the right way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.73.96 ( talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Where is the word count for the English Wikipedia obtained? I looked at the page linked to by the second endnote, but couldn't find any word counts.-- Magicwith4 ( talk) 08:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I just deleted an external link which seems to urge readers to make POV edits. This was inserted - rather brazenly - as the very first external link, above even the multilingual portal. It's a link to an article in the Israeli publication Haaretz containing the following exhortation:
This link was inserted on February 3rd, almost two months ago, by David Shankbone. Am I mistaken, or is this not appropriate? Nonplus ( talk) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
this page shouldn't exist, we've had this discussion too many times, i feel like stopping contributing until this page is gone.
-- Harlequence ( talk) 03:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that showing an article on ourself would make Wikipedia look sort of...vain...but I never knew that featured articles could be barred from the main page. Could someone give me another example? (I read this from the FACs, I know this isn't FA anymore, don't worry). Teh Rote ( talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention why "Wikipedia" isn't called "wikipaedia" - I don't know why it is the case, but surely there must be a reason for the (deliberate?) spelling mistake? Bensonby ( talk) 12:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I've just never seen it spelt without the "ae" before. I thought it might be some subversive internet thing :-p
Its not an anglo-american difference is it? Bensonby ( talk) 14:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point about the "Wikipedia" being a name. My last name is "McMahon" and many people spell it "McMan". This upsets me.:(-- Wikimichael22 ( talk) 17:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimichael22 ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I heard on the news tonight (the article was at the end of the six o'clock news on BBC Radio 4, that today, Wikipedia saw its ten millionth article. If you go to this website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03 you will see how the BBC covered this story. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This article claims there are about 75,000 active contributors for this encyclopaedia. Is there any way to locate them back to the country of residence? Also, where are the requests to the server coming from? I would like to make a bubble map like this.
I was wondering if someone may type a story on their user page and leave it accessible to anyone who goes to their user page. I think that it may be a good idea for young writers who want to be critiqued, but want to stay hidden beneath their user name. Belazael ( talk) 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: The heading was added by User:Puchiko to improve clarity.
Hi! I hate to say this, but it seems wierd Wikipedia has an article about itself.-- Gladboy101 ( talk) 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a useful link if you want it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7347766.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.120.252 ( talk) 20:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to the comment by Gladboy101, the question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on itself has been raised many times before, and the unanimous agreement has been that it should. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
After correcting an error I made regarding the title of this new 45-minute documentary about Wikipedia (and repeating the error in the url of the citation because I had to work hurriedly from memory rather than being able to cut-and-paste), another editor undid the addition: [9] No problem, but I think this film is really worth a mention somewhere in the article, since it would be of interest to the average person looking up Wikipedia for the first time and is available to be viewed online at YouTube. Here is a direct link to the page I cited if anybody is interested in watching it and offering feedback on whether they think it is worthy of inclusion here:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/08/the-truth-according-to-wikipedia/ An unattributed source ( talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody get the feeling that this page is rediculously biased? I love Wikipedia just as much as the next addict, but I can't help feeling like this needs one of those {{POV}} tags. Anyone else? Lesserm ( talk) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC) By Ico
Given that Wikipedia has articles on Uncyclopedia and Conservapedia, would it be fair if it were to include a website on "antiWikipedia", the website dedicated to material deleted from Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if I can solicit some thoughts on the organization of the article. I don't want to be biased, but I think we should get rid of the criticism section. This is per Wikipedia:Criticism. Basically, the problem is that the language like "wikipedia has been criticized for such and such" is a poor writing style. The section also contains some general discussion not so related to the criticism of wikipedia. For example, I don't know why it discusses the idea of "stable versions" (and actually I'm not sure if the article needs to mention internal proposals within wikipedia.) As the aforementioned page suggests, it's best to get rid of the section and organize the article in terms of content, internal structure, history, cultural significance, etc. I think some parts of the criticism section should go to the history section. For example, the Seigenthaler incident might be better discussed in the history section because what is significant is not the incident per se, but its consequence; it led to the adaptation of policies or guidelines. -- Taku ( talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, adding a new section is probably a good idea, for the two topics are closely related. Just to clarify, I am not advocating simply deleting the criticism section, for wikipedia, has, as we all know, been receiving lots of criticism. In any case, I read some of your comments in wikipedia-related articles, and I think you and I seem to have the similar concern. For example, I'm with you on Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, which looks somehow out of place from an overall organization. I don't think we are alone in thinking some sort of clean-up is needed in this area, especially regarding organization of the materials.
Let me first respond to your suggestion at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia. (I want to keep the discussion at one place.) I don't think the "quality of wikipedia" or such is a good way to frame the topic. In my view, the issue is more about how the public interacts with wikipedia. Teachers don't like students using wikipedia for research; a notable public figure finding his biography containing erroneous information, etc. As I pointed above, scandals involving wikipedia has happened from time to time, and they will continue happening. It is best to note some of notable cases in the history section here or History of Wikipedia. I even suspect that the discussion of Nature's famous piece comparing wikipedia and britannica might belong to the history of wikipedia since the piece is rather old now and doesn't reflect the present status of wikipedia. The format at "Content and internal section" (not actual content) is probably close to what I have in mind; a general discussion without citing particular cases.
I wish I could be more articulate, but Richard001, I think, you seem to be unsure as well. Perhaps Wikipedia is a new thing, and it would not surprise me if we find ourselves wondering about how to discuss it. I think it might be better if we just start reorganizing using subpages basically by eliminating duplications and adding appropriate headings. That's probably what I'm going to do anyway because that should give me a better idea. -- Taku ( talk) 06:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wales spent £1 million on site maintenance in 2007. [10] How much of these is donor money? Anwar ( talk)
Note: The below text was originally added to the top of the talk page.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) moved it down here, added the section heading, and substituted {{
unsigned}} No edits to the text were made.
Wikipedia is a great concept. Any article can be created (in theory), it's open to criticism and anyone can contribute so the information should be correct. That's the good bit, then it goes bad: an admin is on standby to make sure all edits are encyclopedic. Like communism, power corrupts. You'll notice in edit histories that what remains in an article is an admin's view disguised by sources to make it look neutral. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.72.79.175 (
talk •
contribs)
21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
i have an issue with wikipedia and its self-imposed power. i heard about a small band in santa fe New mexico called shades of grey. I put all of the information i had in to a article on wikipedia but then some jerk deleted the article because of its lack of "notabilaty" they are jus starting out for goodness sake you high and mighty editors want more than there is for these people so just back off and instead of killing of musicans dreams get a F-ing life. Jesus!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxman101 ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned it a while back, but I'll raise it here again. The ever-present use of Portmanteau has become a bit of an in-joke among Wikipedians, and seeing it here in the lead section of our (just about) most prominent article adds to the word's mystique. But the correct term, if I'm not mistaken, is blend, more widely used by linguists and easier for a reader to understand. I know that Wikipedia's greatest weakness has been shown not to be its reliability, but its readability. Fishal ( talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
On April 23, 2008, El Tiempo, Colombia's highest circulation daily newspaper, mentioned Wikipedia on its front page, calling it "'God' of the web". front page (Spanish)
Unless calling Wikipedia a 'God' in a major nation-wide publication happens more often than I imagine? :) Kreachure ( talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I just skimmed the Hungary article, and I wanted to read it in another language. But since there were soooo many, I really spent some seconds looking for the button. Wouldn't it be easy to print the often used-languages boldly (for registered users)? That would be a real convenience! 212.41.80.236 ( talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel a bit stupid asking this, but I can't find any mention of this number 683 million in [11]. Also, even if the number is true, I think this "visitors" is "US visitors" not international, making it inappropriate to mention in the intro. -- Taku ( talk) 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Holy Crap; It is self-aware. That aside, it's creepy that Wikipedia can pass the Turing test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Variatas ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Clay Shirky and Martin Wattenberg estimate the effort to create Wikipedia at 100,000,000 man-hours. [12] GregorB ( talk) 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that the bubble map makes no sense? It really doesn't tell us much. Those red dots seem completely arbitrary and I have no idea what "top market" means (the internet doesn't give an immediate answer either). The creator's user page has some information about what exactly a bubble map is, but it seems sort of technical and doesn't help with reading the Wikipedia one.
I suggest that it should be removed
134.10.22.103 ( talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The most recent Alexa rank is 8, not 7. I'm an IP and can't update. 131.111.247.194 ( talk) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to add info from this article that talks about where we get our traffic. [13] - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
when you search up a song or anything related to a song it be better if the song could actually be played e.g:If you type oliver twist musical it will give you a whole list of songs they sung, it would be even better if you could hear those songs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.0.149 ( talk) 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
seems like the ¨long term abuse page guy¨ (guess he meant page abuse) will carry on until someone else has a go. Popular wikipedia topics are rather like mountains... and vandals like the mountaineers who will always have a go ¨because its there¨... or will the software get REALLY clever? 81.103.112.205 ( talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Today's Married to the Sea comic mentions Wikipedia; I'm just throwing this out there in case someone wants to add it to the "culture" section (like we need another comic there...). ~EdGl (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: The heading isn't by the original poster, it was added by
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) to improve the organization of the talk page.
wats up with the deletion of the matt sabia page?! someone help me out here —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dmac4 (
talk •
contribs)
04:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The Speedy Delete Option should not remove the page instantly, it should create a record or a log of the "to be deleted record" so if such needs to be disputed they page can be recovered other wise, you will lose potentially important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinkaz ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
should we perhaps change "...about the free encyclopedia..." to "...about the free wiki encyclopedia"?
are not we a wiki first? and an encyclopedia second. i get yelled at for bringing this up. if i'm wrong all i need is directions to another way to see this.
really i suppose i'm concerned because i want to take whichever view is best for wikipedia.
for now i feel that to consider ourselves an encyclopedia first, and a wiki second (if at all), would lack neutrality.
this could be our downfall, and i love this wiki more than any encyclopedia that has ever given me papercuts.
if you respond, understand the degree of sincerity in my suggestion and/or question. thank you.
-- Harlequence ( talk) 18:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this article is not notable enough for the wiki's standards and therefore this article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.243.6 ( talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In the history section, this sentence in the last paragraph it is not referenced
Technically a service mark, the scope of the mark is for: "Provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet".
Who defines the scope of the mark and under which terms? Is this a general and standard classification?
Besides, I corrected ref.30, (^ Jimmy Wales: "Announcing Wikimedia Foundation", 20 June 2003, <wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org>) which was pointing to a wrong ml message. Now it links to the correct announcement of the wikimedia foundation. Poderi ( talk) 14:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I rearranged the raw stacking order of the images of Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales within this article. If you had a screen resolution of something greater than 1024 (for example 1280, like my laptop monitor), the image of Larry was getting overlapped with text. After analyzing, I noticed that the Nupedia logo was bumping Jimbo down a little bit, and since Jimbo's picture was a little below the text, Larry's picture was put a little below the text too, causing text overlap. Trading the ordering of these two images fixed the problem. I just thought I should document this here so everyone knows why I traded them. Hopefully this makes sense. TIM KLOSKE| TALK 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed something, with "available languages" it says "236 active editions (253 in total)", which is obviously impossible since there are more active editions than total ones. However granted the fact that I'm not sure how many total editions there are, I decided to put this here while I try to find out. -- HAL talk 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
oh my god. he told you three times ! Machete97 ( talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should include some sort of refrence to the fact that this website is wikipedia. Thoughts? munchman | talk; 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposedly factual, but it is actually controlled by a secret cabal of republicans seated deep within the bowels of a dormant volcano. The people must know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.82.250.201 ( talk) 13:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. munchman | talk; 10:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there really nobody on Wikipedia's payroll at all? This is the question I would still like to have answered after reading this fascinating article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus Sonderriis ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think about Wikipedia in a certain instant of time you realize its definitely NOT a trustable source of information because somebody looking for fun might have edited the article some seconds before you copy the information to use as reference. I personally never get nothing from wikipedia, i only use its as comparative with my other sources. An open online encyclopedia is something that can grow but will never be part of people's choices when they are looking for genuine content.
Yes, on wikipedia Jesus Christ might have been an American president.
Answer: thank you! So, is WikiMedia's "developers" only making software? Has absolutely no-one been paid, for instance, for such a fabulous range of high-quality science entries? Or do some donors contribute by paying for other people's man hours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus Sonderriis ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added a link to wiki race in the culture section of this article... I haven't made many edits and I don't know if it is the type of content you want within this article. The wiki race article is new and needs links to it, which is why it is here. If it is not appropriate just reply to tell me why and in what context and which articles it should be linked to by. Wuzzie ( talk) 10:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, well, I found this grammar mistake in the page if you would please change it. Here is the sentence:
Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[4] it currently the largest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work available on the Internet.
As you can see, "...it currently the largest..." isn't grammatically correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincer 17 ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I administer Ultipedia, a site largely inspired by Wikipedia, but degfdsgfdgsdfgfdicated to capturing the culture surrounding Ultimate (sport). I have been discussing integrating articles from another source which are currently under a CC-BY-SA-NC license. Since I have written most of the content on Ultipedia I am not adverse to changing licenses, but the notion of continuing to deal with cross-licensing issues is very unappealing. Is it likely that Wikipedia will change licenses ? In order to maximise cross pollination efforts with Wikipedia (both present and future), what would be the best license to use for a nascent wiki ? Ivasara ( talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In the final paragraph of "History" section there's a citation needed tag on the text of wikipedia's trademark. I'm just a newb and don't know all the editing procedures, and I'm not sure if this link is permanent, but here is the url for the United States Patent and Trademark Office's TARR page for the Wikipedia trademark: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78483359 The text "Providing information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet" can be found under the section "Goods and Services". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.144.250 ( talk) 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this tedious saga back up but I was surprised after all the debate which has gone on that this article has certain references to "who is the founder" where really none is necessary. I have removed a paragraph-opening sentence, "Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the founders of Wikipedia." It seems unnecessary to make such a firm pronouncement without mentioning controversy over the name. The history of article goes into the foundership in well-handled detail anyway. I also rephrased a couple of references to Jimbo as "Jimmy, the founder" and "co-founder Jimmy" to "founder Jimmy" which does the job of informing who it is we're talking about but leaves it open as to whether he is the only founder or whatever.
I hope that wasn't jumping the gun too much but thought I'd explain the reasoning here. BigBlueFish ( talk) 11:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Amina. I am in middle school. My teacher says that it may not be good to use Wikipedia for research because anyone can edit it, and some stuff could be inaccurate. Can we discuss this topic and what we feel about it? I am just curious about what others would say. Thanks! I will create a Wikipedia account soon. -- 65.190.208.212 ( talk) 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here is my account: -- Amina96 ( talk) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
what is it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.252.29 ( talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Their should be a section about criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 ( talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Are all laguage versions of Wikipedia using the same MediaWiki version as en.wikipedia.org? I do not think so! Lets put it in the article.-- Kozuch ( talk) 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What time does Wikipedia use? It is currently a couple of minutes past midnight (in England), but when I sign this, it will say it has just gone 11. Why???
DineshAdv ( talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I just saw the page just have 2 contributions. The talk page was even non-existant. What happened? Arienh4 (Talk) 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a question. Do people who stop and reverse vandalism, add pages, and edit work for Wikipedia? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.62.141.11 (
talk)
07:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My middle fingers, those ones.
The criticism section mentions repeatedly various critics and commentators but, never says who. The question I and possibly other want to now is what critics and commentators feel that Wikipedia has problems and for that matter what are their EXACT complaints? I my opinion even a few limited examples would help here. So I made up a template to (I hope) help. Here is a simple to follow template for the Wikipedia criticism section.
Insert the info, write the citation, and you're done.
"Many (insert method of communication.)(I.E. T.V.) commentators feel that Wikipedia is flawed. One such person is(insert commentator that operates on that method of communication.) I.E. Lou Dobbs) who feels/believes that Wikipedia is flawed because (insert reason here) I.E. loss of print encyclopedia business and further slump in the economy.)(Cite RELIABLE source here.)
Below is a simple example of this template.
Many T.V. commentators believe Wikipedia is flawed. One such person is Lou Dobbs who strongly believes that Wikipedia is has problems because he believes that it could put print encyclopedia out of business. Thereby leading to a further loss of jobs and an increased slump in the economy. [Random number of cititation.]
(P.S. Lou Dobbs was the only commentator who I could think of at the time.) Rengaw01 ( talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a line in the article which reads Wikipedia is a project that attempts to summarize all of human knowledge. I dispute this, given that WP:NOTE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE both say that there are notability requirements for articles on here. -- JediLofty User Talk 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
To quote Knowledge in Wikipedia,
Since we are talking "human knowledge", I think that means knowledge that is known to humanity. (Not to a particular single human being.) Local knowledge, for instance, may be knowledge according to (ii), but it is not quite human knowledge. -- Taku ( talk) 22:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. It says "Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge." So, it is correct to say that the aim of the project is for the sum of human knowledge (though "summarize" may not be the best word, because we often have very detailed account of historical events, for instance.) -- Taku ( talk) 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The spoken version of this article differs significantly from the current text. Should this be removed until updated? RaphytheTurtle ( talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a forum linked to Wikipedia for general discussions. I think it would fit in well. Place a "discuss" button at or near the top of every article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 ( talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
therefore I went to discussion.
to wikipedia: you said that i could edit this article.actually,i cant because everytime i see the small lock on upper right corner that means i cant edit. 96.235.133.35 ( talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Register a user name and you will not have this problem. You are more anonymous with a user name then without. JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
How do we put comments for answering questions? sorry, if im stupid but im new here. chessmate92 ( talk) 00:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What chesemate meant was how do you reply to a certain comment —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.216.24.234 (
talk)
10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Why does "Wikipedia 1.0" forward here? There's nothing about Wikipedia 1.0 in the text and I'm wondering what it is. Dazjorz ( talk) 11:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Wikipedia is using their article about themselves is being used for their own purposes. To defend this point, I have made a list of proof.
1. They say that Wikipedia is the “most popular work of general reference on the internet”. Though Wikipedia is becoming increasingly popular, there is no practical way to measure this, and therefore, that statement is just an assumption.
2. They said that Wikipedia is attempting to “summarize all human knowledge”. First of all, there is no way to do that, and they are aware of that. Secondly, they never said that that was their goal any time before. In fact, another article said that they are not trying to do that. They would have said that to get people interested in their project.
3. Also, in the criticism section, they seldom say any names of the people who criticized them. Could this be used so that people would forget about the flaws and enjoy Wikipedia?
4. At the top of the talk page, they say that their article is a Technology and Engineering Good Article. You can figure that they would describe the article about themselves as good.
5. Finally, they stated in the discussion page that the answer to the question of whether or not there should be an article about them “is a definite yes”. They hat obviously said that so that the article wouldn’t be removed and people would still be able to read that article.
Fellow wikipedians, I do love Wikipedia and use it regularly, but it removes from the quality of the work to have such a self serving article. Perhaps Wikipedia could be more humble in these types of articles. -- Ojay123 ( talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
should Wikipedia have an article on itself
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.182.198 ( talk) 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it odd that an effort hasn't been made to bring this page to featured article status?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancron ( talk • contribs)
It's full of grammatical mistakes too. Probably not ready to be featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 ( talk) 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to find out what led to the Wikipedia community's success in attracting admins? How did people get started as administrators, and what incentives are there for editors to become more involved? Any help would be much appreciated, -- Tishadejmanee ( talk) 15:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
My friends and I (and most everyone I know) uses the term "wiki-rampage", "wikipedia rampage" or similar statements to denote the fact that one can link click on links to a chain of references so that one forgets the original topic he/she was pursuing. I think it deserves an article or something more prevalent in the definition of Wikipedia, as it is used more and more often as a tangible reference.
[ [14]] Probably not quite what you're looking for, but I bet the forum replies to this might be a good place to start. EagleFalconn ( talk) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Over the last 2 days while I have been viewing various pages of wikipedia I have come across some sort of apparent hack. The articles of whatever page I was viewing have been replaced by total black, with various messages in white text by sombody known as "zodiac", as well as a code of some sort apparently including his social security number and a picture of a celtic style cross. I am extremely curious to know what exactly is known about this "zodiac" thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.24.27 ( talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this true? A reference (that is this one [15]) is given, but I can't find this number mentioned in the source. The source says only that the monthly traffic is 53,312,459. I also don't think why the traffic from the US is relevant in the lead section. I mean, why US?, which is just a country. -- Taku ( talk) 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The population of the US is less than half of that... oh I see. They mean annual traffic. 53.3 mil x 12 = 683 mil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 ( talk) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
So, the mystery remains. I really don't think the number was made up, I just couldn't figure out its source. As to the second point, you're right. "annual traffic" isn't the same as the average annual traffic. But the phrasing "Wikipedia attracts X million visitors annually" would suggest "average annual traffic", I think, (as opposed to, say, "in 2007 Wikipedia attracted X visitors".) For the record, I'm not against the inclusion of this kind of information; it's just the numbers have to be verified. -- Taku ( talk) 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed
" In a 2008 interview, Jimmy Wales said that the foundation spent $2 million of donor money in 2007 toward site maintenance costs. [2] The foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, a for-profit company founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. The Wikimedia Foundation received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the fiscal year ending June 30 2006. [3]
In The New York Times in March 2008, Wales discussed a possible trivia game based on Wikipedia. [4]
from the paragraph it was pasted in. I think part of this text should (could) be reinserted in another paragraph, but probably not the same. Basically, most of that stuff belong to history now. I find a headtitle in this article "Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia" slightly misleading to say the least. Wikia has not done anything special for our project for the past 2 years, except for sponsoring Wikimania (and yet, we do not mention sponsors in that page). Historically speaking, it is interesting to note that Wikimedia Foundation received 6000 dollars worth for office space from Wikia in 2006, but does this information REALLY belong to the Wikipedia article ? I think not. Also, the paragraph still mentions that the Foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, which is clearly incorrect. I think that unless people can prove that this is true, it does not belong to this page.
Regarding the "possible trivia game", I think it is really a detail. Seriously, the Foundation staff (now operating the Foundation) is in charge of such decisions, not Jimbo. And the Foundation staff receive dozen of such proposals every month. What is really important in the long run ? What is really set up (eg, a DVD version, a print version etc...), or the mention that Jimbo thought a trivia game might be done, perhaps, one day, in the future, if such is decided by the staff and a good deal is proposed.
Last, I decided to mention chapters. This is bold, in particular in the english version. But to be fair, some chapters have a serious influence on some languages (eg, the german chapter on the german wikipedia) and several have contributed serious money (FAR more serious than the 6000 dollars worth from Wikia). Not mentionning chapters but putting a headline about Wikia... seems to me to not be reflecting the reality of what is happening right now.
Please discuss :-)
Anthere ( talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Why just audio file? My dog ate my speakers! Thanks. 124.102.43.240 ( talk) 01:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
A single line in the lede had a {{ Who?}} tag placed on it by an editor with the edit summary: weasel wording!. The line in question is:
To remove the weasel wording, with an edit summary of clarified scholarly work based on references supplied I changed it to:
This got reverted with the edit summary: But the lead isn't a place to get into details; it is ok to give only a summary in the lead
I then removed the {{ Who?}} tag with the edit summary of: then we need to remove the "Who? tag also. I was just responding to another editors request for clarification as to who said those things
The {{ Who?}} tag was then reinserted with an edit summary of: weasel wording
Someone needs to give in, either we need to clarify who wrote the scholarly works like my edit did or we don't but either way the {{ Who?}} tag needs to come out. Jons63 ( talk) 13:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
We should change the picture of the Wikipedia to be the picture of the article itself, creating an infinite loop. I believe that the enormous power of Wikipedia would create a Wormhole, thus unlocking the key to time travel! People would then be able to travel through time by going to time travel article, or to the article on a past or future date. The only problem is that this might cause the Universe to implode. GBizzle ( talk) 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hilarious as the inclusion of 'recursion' in the See Also section is, it probably counts as a self-reference to avoid; not only is it inaccurate on a mirror of the article, it's likely to be confusing if readers don't know where the article origniated. Any objections if I remove it? Olaf Davis | Talk 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
On 9 august 2008 the Dutch version of wikipedia was censored officially by a moderator. In the article nl:Lijst van vrijmetselaars uit België (list of Belgian freemasons) the history was partially deleted. In recent months it was debated if living belgian freemasons were to be included in the list. Because of worries for 'privacy' it was decided by the moderators only to include dead freemasons. All living freemasons were strikken from the list. After written conversation with the official Belgian 'commissie voor de bescherming van de persoonlijke levenssfeer', the official Belgian privacy commission, the history was censored and deleted were you could find historical edits of living freemasons. After a request to publish the documents ordering this action, the moderator would only publish excerpts, and not the full letters of the government body.This proces was later repeated on the history of my personal page (in which i had copied everything nl:Gebruiker:Stijn_Calle). So this amounts to self-sensorship done by wikipedia moderators themselves.
Note: Belgian privacy law is only applicable on Belgian territory. The server of the dutch Wikipedia is not geographically situated in Belgium, but in the US or another country outside the US. Thus Belgian law is not applicable on these servers.
Remark: Winston Smith's job in the ministery of truth (1984) was destroying past history and replacing it. This is happening in Belgium ON wikipedia. There is a name for this kind of action: censorship.-- Stijn Calle ( talk) 08:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Look, I have no opinion on this, but the edit warring has to stop. Please discuss proposed changes to the infobox's "Author:" attribute here before making them. =David( talk)( contribs) 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
why? Mariofan1000 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
After all, in a sense, wikipedia is talking about itself. Therefore it is possible that the wiki is conscious, and should be construed as an "I". Xhin Give Back Our Membership! 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
What was the first article created on Wikipedia. I have had a look around but I have only found editors/articles from July 01. 134.148.5.119 09:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The audio file really needs to be updated. Any volunteers? Randomblue 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed recently that google has started giving brief summaries of the contents of wiki pages instead of the first sentence or two from the page itself as is usually the case with google search results. As an example, searching for "Arabic Language" the search result for wiki is "Wikipedia article, with links to other articles on Modern Standard and Classical Arabic, as well as other varieties of the language." Is this a google thing or is it a wikipedia thing? TheStripèdOne 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia fork redirects to this article. I think the article should say something more about the over 500 Wikipedia forks. Should we use Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks as a reference for that number, or is that too self-referential? -- 75.48.165.135 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the following statement as it has been tagged as needing a source for several months:
If anyone can add a source for this, feel free to re-add it. — An gr 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I support your decision -- Youhavenolife 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Many language versions of Wikipedia are free content, while others, such as the English version, include non-free material.-- 71.234.97.27 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Was discussing irony of criticism against wikipedia for lack of proper citations (had a cite on that XD) went to visit the site listed and was unable to access the page. Someone should look into this, it managed to get wikipedia nearly banned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphoray ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should let people upload music to certain sites that the music would aply to. Then People could listen to music while there reading.
Following is too petty for article (a minor politican raising an unimportant question, of minimal relevance to this article) so I think it should be removed:
On 29 September, 2007, Italian politician Franco Grillini raised a parliamentary question with the Minister of Cultural Resources and Activities about the necessity of freedom of panorama. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Wikipedia, "the seventh most consulted website" to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues.
Thanks.--
82.148.54.193
20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or did the wikipedia globe (right above teh search bar) change? 76.109.11.127 02:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)chewka
Is it just me or exist two version of the english wikip edia? Exist it an american wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordbecket ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Dsmccohen 09:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I am finding that majority of articles ( for ex MoveOn.org articles, Al Gore article ) have a clear liberal slant - yet, I could not find a single page with a conservative slant.
Which leads me to wonder if Wikipedia is primarily a medium for expressing liberal views? - Not that there is anything wrong with it ;) TwakTwik 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
A fun project to do would be to use WikiScanner to location map the IP addresses of all changes and then do a cross look up of blue and red states. TwakTwik 02:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Another example would be Bill Clinton's page, specifically around impeachment section TwakTwik 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, its predominantly democratic :) TwakTwik 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There's an incidence of the word "a" before a vowel (the word "internet") in the final sentence of the fourth paragraph. I'd fix it, but the article is locked, and I'm a wikinoob, alas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.48.35 ( talk) 05:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This is just vanity and self-worship. It's even classed as a "good article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.13.209 ( talk) 07:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia under the USA law since the Wikimedia (and main server) locates in the USA? Thanks. -- Manop - TH 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The word "over" is repeated twice in only two sentences, one succeeding the other.
As of September 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 8.29 million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.41 billion words for all Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia edition passed the 2,000,000 article mark on September 9, 2007, and as of October 14, 2007 it had over 2,047,000 articles consisting of over 890,000,000 words.
Randomblue 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There used to be a section named "history" on this article but it has been vandalized by TheMarioManiac on May 14th, 2007 and it was badly reverted (deletion actually, but the person probably didn't know it was a real section before being vandalized). Then a new similar section ("Founding") has been written on July 6th, 2007. I think this section "history" is really worthy, so can anybody merge it with the new section "founding"? 16@r 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
great site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.117.152 ( talk) 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It even works with "fuckeduppedia! OMG!-- Press208 02:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The article presents the number of wikipedia's words. Is it possible to inform us and the number of its UNIQUE words? -- Kaseluris, Nikos 06:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please unlock this page? I would like to add some sarcastic criticism of Wikipedia along with some off-colour sexual humour. Thank you. -- 24.235.231.206 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't there a separate article on Wikipedians - saying some welcome new members, others do this or that, etc. Now I can't find it! Expected to see on the See also but not there. Any ideas what the article title is I'm looking for? DionysosProteus 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It was the latter I was looking for. Any reason that's not on the see also list? DionysosProteus 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Though it might be true indeed that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by left-wing vandals, the citing of Newsmax as a source is just sloppy. Newsmax is known to be reactionary and sensational. I read the article referred to and most of it reads like an editorial, as the article does a poor job indeed of making the case that liberals control the Wikipedia domain. I removed citation 69 as well as the sentence preceding it.
For your enjoyment, the final sentence of the article, "Most people accept information that is at their fingertips and don't take the time to check original sources. Thus the information superhighway offers everyone access to the same often inaccurate and biased information."
Asaspades9 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What would happen if the hard drives holding part of wikipedia crashed and failed or some natural cause such as a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or fire destroyed the serevers holding the information on wikipedia? Or someone purposely physically vandalized the hard drives storing Wikipedia? Do they back up all the information as it is added in another place so if one server failed not all of the information would be lost?-- 71.234.111.157 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the article about wikipedia I think there are some neutrality issues particularly regarding the section about reliability and bias. It seems as though it has under represented the argument that these topics are valid and over represented the infalliability of wikipedia. It also is troubling that in outlining the argument the definitions used are ones that users in the wikipedia community created (hyperlinked) Matt1741 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) rather than allowing for an actual argument to take place in which definitions could be agreed upon by both sides.
This may be an article that ought to be reviewed.
Love the rest of the site. Matt1741 10.25.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1741 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is an article on criticism about wikipedia. Wikipedia is practically anti-advertising itself. AbsoluteZero255 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There may be some structural problems though in the way that Wikipedia is using all the methods that are suspect to describe the suspect problems.
Matt1741
15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I am curious to know why Wikipedia still has no "did you mean ____?" links when I search for something and accidently spell it wrong. Why is this? Has it not yet been suggested that Wikipedia include such a tool? Heretic 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the way the three separate Wikipedia related templates still exclude some of the major articles - reliability, criticism and in culture are all left out. Is there any way we could fit them in somewhere, or rearrange the templates somehow to do so? We could even merge the lot into one super template, perhaps 'Wikipedia and related projects' or 'Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation'. The problem there is that all the unrelated stuff is included if you just want something like the small Wikimedia projects version on e.g. Wikiquote. I don't know of any way to use only part of a template if desired, though it might be possible... Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Take your pick: Wikipedia community or Wikipedia Community. To which should they redirect? Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We need an image of Jimbo here - the article is incomplete without it. Take your pick. Any suggestions? We used to have Image:Jimbo-wales---fosdem-2005.jpg IIRC, which I suggested be cropped, though that may have been another article. How about Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg or Image:Jimbo_Wales_in_France_cropped.jpg? There are two others like the former as well. Richard001 07:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Rules say that a person or an entity should refrain from writing an article about oneself and leave this task for someone else to ensure objectivity and neutrality, so how could the wikipedia community describe their project by themselves, they should leave that for other encyclopedias like Britannica or whatever rather than this utter selfishness.
Tyranopediac 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't watch this article, but I've seen the question above raised three times on this talk page alone, and we have 16 archives. Are there any others besides this that get frequently asked? I note that a lot of busy pages are using FAQs, such as evolution, intelligent design etc. Perhaps this is something we could consider. Richard001 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for all these discussions, but I feel we need better information on the number of Wikipedians too. Often quoted is the number of editors, but this statistic is vague and sure to be misleading. I'd like to know how many active contributors we have, and more statistics on this in general. Does anyone know if/where such information could be found? It would also be possible to ascertain a reasonable estimate based on a sampling of existing users accounts, looking at what fraction are currently active. Richard001 09:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Just reading reliability of Wikipedia at the moment and I think 'quality of Wikipedia' might be a slightly better reflection of its scope. Comments welcome at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article name. Richard001 10:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I think that Wikipedia has a few of it's facts wrong! By the way- did Google write an article about how good it was?
No! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.240.47 ( talk) 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
For the first time, Alexa stats now ranks WP as the 8th most visited website. -- Camptown 09:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
How does one edit a page on Wikipedia? I know it must be simple, but I simply can't get my arms around it.-- Eventadmitbud 03:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not following.-- Eventadmitbud 03:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia wants everything to be free and GFDL, then why is its own logo not even GFDL? It seems very hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me Smiling Incorporated ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a generally accepted policy page entitled WP:Idiots Can Edit but I can't find it anymore! Is there any change in this respect? Is Wikipedia no longer the free encyclopedia that everyone can edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.131 ( talk) 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I edit this page? Chrissie
Could somebody please add an interwiki to zea:Wikipedia? Thanks :) -- Ooswesthoesbes 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? -- Ye Olde Luke 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Why there is no Larry Sanger's picture in the article? He is a co-founder, he gave the name to the project, he gave the wiki idea. There is a Jimbo picture. Is this a NPOV? -- NeutralPoint 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I did ctrl+F and find no mention of Essjay or Seigenthaler. Any controversy on wikipedia with its own article should be accessible from this page, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
What is that strange grey-y/blue liney object used as the background on every page? Why does the Arabic wikipedia have a different one? -- 86.135.216.24 01:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, I never noticed that was a book before. Gee, I've only been using Wikipedia for three years, too... — An gr 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably most alredy know, I just tiped en.vikipedia.org and browser opened some adult or something like that, site. w and v is quite the same;)
I've noticed that there has been many acts of vandalism upon this page, and most likely, this post will be vandalised sometime in the future. Is it possible to semi-protect this page, as this seems to be causing a bit of trouble. For example, as I was scanning the history of the page, I realized that reverting the article to its non-vandalised state would delete new editions to this article, forcing one to manually sort out vandalism. Anyways, I'm sure a non-registered person who has a great suggestion would be able to wait a few days of registering. Rfts ( talk) 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC) NO VANDALISM!
How does Wikipedia know for sure that two articles are about the same topic in different languages?-- 24.166.56.195 ( talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Before I assume that this is the very vandalism it seems to be referring to (i.e. "random letters"), will someone tell me if there is such thing as a pletter? I will remove it soon. Cuindless ( talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Have the web server automatically change the following static text in this article every 5 minutes:
"As of December 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 9 ¼ million articles in 253 languages"
"As of <=TODAY()>, Wikipedia haS approximately <=TOTALNUMBEROFARTICLES()> articles in 253 languages...."
What do you think about this? Please comment to me on my Talk: page and thanks kindly.
--
Vid2vid (
talk)
21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia (IPA: /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/, /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdiə/, /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ or /ˌwiːkiˈpeɪdiə/) (Audio (U.S.) (help·info)) is a free,[4] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, it is the largest, fastest growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet.[5][6]
As of December 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 9 ¼ million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.74 billion words for all Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia edition passed the 2,000,000 article mark on September 9, 2007, and as of January 30, 2008 it had over 2,200,000 articles consisting of over 957,000,000 words.[2] Wikipedia's articles have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and the vast majority of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. Having steadily risen in popularity since its inception,[1] it currently ranks among the top ten most-visited websites worldwide.[7]
Critics have questioned Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, citing its open nature.[8] The criticism is centered on its susceptibility to vandalism, such as the insertion of profanities or random letters into articles, and the addition of spurious or unverified information;[9] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies;[10] and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[11] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[12][13]
In addition to being an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia has received major media attention as an online source of breaking news as it is constantly updated.[14][15] When Time Magazine recognized "You" as their Person of the Year 2006, praising the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, Wikipedia was the first particular "Web 2.0" service mentioned, followed by YouTube and MySpace.[16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.1.27 ( talk) 19:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Wikipedia is listed in the 2008 Guiness Book of World Records as the world's largest encyclopedia. Should this record be mentioned one of the Wikipedia-related articles? Can the book be used as the reference or is the record too obvious? Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How much bookshelf space would a printed version of Wikipedia take up? I calculated it at 72 miles (figuring all the books in one shelf). Here's how I did it:
As of November 30, 2007, this page reported Wikipedia contained 916,000,000 words. I figured only 5 characters per word (but actually believe it could be higher). A standard 8.5" x 11" page contains 2,000 characters per side, or 4,000 characters for each sheet of paper, resulting in 1,145,000 sheets of paper. I measured and found 1,000 pages of 20# paper takes up at least 4 inches, or 4,580,000 inches. There are 63,360 inches in a mile. That's 72.285 miles. It would actually be longer since I didn't figure width of each book's front and back covers.
I am open to other assumptions (the number of characters including spaces per word, for example).
And all accessible via a computer and the Web or in the palm of your hand by using the new Kindle electronic book. Ed 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But that 200 feet contains a lot of poor quality stuff. I prefer having an editorial filter. Life is too short... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.126.219 ( talk) 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i am thinking about how "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" would be translated into Mongolian in the Mongolian Wikipedia. What is the exact meaning of "the free"? Personally, I think it is free, because no one have to pay for what they read. Or is it free, because everyone can access freely? Please help me to determine the right meaning. Bilguun.alt 05:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been revealed that the editors of Wikipedia use a secret mailing list to ensure that the content on Wikipedia remains inline with their liking. Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
(ps: Would love to see the discussion happening on the secret mailing list about this proposal :) )
TwakTwik 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
After a discussion as to the impact of Wikipedia on the world and our everyday society. My co-workers and I came to the agreement that Wikipedia was perhaps the greatest innovation in information availability since the invention of the printing press. And as the printing press could be used to spread knowledge but it could also be used to spread propaganda and lies. As Wikipedia grows in volume of information and becomes more and more prevalent in our society as the best source for any information you could ever want or need it has the potential to become very similar to the "Ministry of Truth". Clearly we are a long way off from the "Ministry of Truth" described in George Orwell's book 1984, but potentially we have the power collective as a society to change any fact historical, literary or scientific..... Or if it was taken over by a government agency of coarse. :-P
With the power of Wikipedia I wouldn't be surprised if a world government sometime in the near future doesn't forge their own private Wikipedia (and block the real deal) and populate it with only the information they deem acceptable. And a true "Ministry of Truth" is born.
Thoughts?
-- John hmstr ( talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Almost anyone can edit Wikipedia. I highly doubt everyone with access to the World Wide Web would allow for Wikipedia to become some totalitarian enterprise.-- Bricktoday ( talk) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw in the article that they have hundreds of Linux computers running a dedicated server. I want to know how much memory is used to keep this site up. I know YouTube has quite a few terabytes. This surely must have quite a few. -KT- KT529 ( talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. But, why only 30 Gb? They said they had many Linux computers in the US. 30 Gb is less than ONE good computers memory. Sorta doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KT529 ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being late with this:
Wikipedia in culture → Wikipedia#Cultural significance.
We don't need an edit for every "ooh, Sideshow Bob mentioned Wikipedia!" Such trivia is discouraged per WP:5P, but it is a fact that Wikipedia is a cultural phenomenom. We should, then, focus on connective trivia on how its made an impact with an example. Such is the case with "Inaccuracy: The Onion; Source of information: The Office; Meta-humour: xkcd", which is in the article. Will ( talk) 13:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it would help the community if at the bottom of the articles it showed who posted them? Then we could more directly communicate any errors to be fixed (if they're an active user). -KT-
-killertank529- ( talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the following disclaimer should be added:
Wikipedia uses multiple tiers of control for editors. Senior editors trusted by Jimmy Wales are given permission to protect articles from edits that they do not like. Wikipedia has an informal hierarchy of power that ensures that none of the content in Wikipedia will contradict with the views of the senior editors. TwakTwik ( talk) 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I have re-added the primary sources tag to the Language editions section, after it was removed with the comment that it "looked ok". I disagree with this assertion: everything in the section is cited to primary sources. The only secondary source discusses the topic of the section (Language editions) only in a trivial manner, and is not sufficient. This is a problem throughout the whole of this article, but starting small seems like a good idea. User:Krator ( t c) 13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? -- Ye Olde Luke 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Why would wikipedia have an article on itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PwnersRule ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- PwnersRule ( talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)PwnersRule
80.165.181.235 ( talk) 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC) I kind of disaggree with the artical that screenreading technology can't be used with wikipedia, if you know your screenreader then you'll do fine, at least I do and I'm fully blind. Of course it depends on which screenreader you use, but over all I'd say wikipedia is accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.165.181.235 ( talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
A discussion about another wiki brought up an important issue. Unlike other text under the GFDL I don't download the whole thing before making modifications. Before Wikipedia one would copy a document, edit it on my computer, and then distribute the modified version.
I believe there should be some information about the mechanism that places contributions under the GFDL. Has anyone ever published a legal opinion that explains why having a little note at the bottom of the edit page places my contribution under the GFDL?
What allowed the content under the Bomis license to become GFDL? I'm assuming it was a donation. Did someone write a letter saying the following information is now under the GFDL?
-- Gbleem ( talk) 06:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the references at the end pf the article points to a non-existent page. [1] It points to an article in The Washington Post, which is no longer there. Maybe there's some sort of archive we can point to? Not being familiar with that website, I took no action. -- Ruijoel ( talk) 14:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has an external link to wikipedia.com. Though I agree that it is important to document the original URL of wikipedia, I don't think this should be an external link. When the link is clicked it just sends me to wikipedia.org, and I am already there. If someone who is able to edit this page wouldn't mind, it would be great if that link was removed. RedSox2008 ( talk) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In the intrest of neutralism, I think there ought to be a criticisms section on this article. Llamadog903 ( talk) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The criticism should include the sites hasty move to delete articles. Reference: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=199409
Here's my mild criticism for the people a wikipedia. Though I truly enjoy the service I find the method used to solicit donations to be quite petty. Getting slammed at every page to please donate a person could find themselves under the impression that wikipedia is hurting for funds to run the website. Looking at their donations page however it is clearly not the case. I find it hard to imagine that a lot of staff is needed to run wikipedia as it is completely built by it's viewers. Staff are needed to police the articles (as I'm sure this one will be pulled) but I hardly see their being a shortage of funds for them looking at the volume of donations received by the website. Beyond that, new hardware and software as well as other expenses seem to all be more than covered looking at the donations page. So where's all the money going? I can make a guess but will keep that to myself. Anyway, having a donations page is a great idea. But do you really have to act like you are in such need of funds when you are receiving ridiculous amounts of money already? Is the wiki team sick of flying business and considering a private jet? Does the head office seem a little boring and making trump tours look more your style? Please. You want donations and you're getting them. Stop acting like your going broke because no one is buying it. If anything, seeing that banner at the top of every page makes me want to donate even less then before. It's just greedy. My advice is that you stop before someone does an expose on you guys and where their "donations" are going. Seems like something I may see on dateline someday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.101.146 ( talk • contribs) 28 December 2007
If you want to know what the money is planned to be spent on, see the image below:
What must be understood is that the Wikipedia database is very large. A database dump of just the top revisions of all the pages on Wikipedia, in an archive file is six gigabytes large. Multiply in all revisions, all wikipedias, your compression ratio, and you're talking terabytes upon terabytes, not to mention the backups. On top of that, they need memory, processing, bandwidth just to make Wikipedia run as smoothly as it does today. Will ( talk) 02:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The license of that screenshot bothers me. I thought this was a free encyclopedia. It really has to be changed or removed! -- 212.247.27.80 ( talk) 13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
has the icon that appears before the adress in IE7 changed from a W to some multicoloured thing D A V I D C A T 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of articles out there about our WP experiment. I am wondering what the consensus is for inclusion of any of these articles in an external links section here? For example, here is one, albeit, of a more controversial nature, but still interesting: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ Giovanni33 ( talk) 09:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find any info about it. Where can I find it? Is it Debian and if so what version? Do all servers run on the same Linux distribution? Tommy ( talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media and Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.64.213 ( talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
this is why people should not trust wikipedia beacause a girl who is not in her 20s is writting this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.246.217 ( talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
== cuba == cabana
Sorry? The age of the authors has no relation to the reliability of the work. Please see Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Trustworthiness. -- Puchiko ( Talk- email) 13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I would trust some teenage girl more than some cia agent. -- Taku ( talk) 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the password to edit Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunchscale\Lobbykneew ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is no longer in the "current_edition." The correct hyperlink is: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=209408 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.253.42 ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Nbeniwal for the details [2] of Wikipedia's mention by the Supreme Court of India. I don't think it warrants being in the introduction though, so I am moving it here for now:
The in Commr. of Customs, Bangalore vs. ACER India Pvt. Ltd (Citation: 2007(12)SCALE581) stated that: We have referred to wikipedia, as the learned Counsel for the parties relied thereupon. It is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic. It may be useful to note that observations of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in India.
Once the citation is re-formatted as a footnote (is this available online?), I think this could be included briefly in the Criticism section. Open4D ( talk) 12:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the word 'Wikipedia' be italicized? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia is a work, and names of works should be italicized (like titles of books, albums, magazines, films and tv series are.) — Jhn * 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It depends what standars you are using, if you use the APA's strict standard for example, Wikipedia would only be italicised in certain conditions. I personaly think its not worth bothering with really.
Julienrl ( talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Founders are listed...then another paragraph lists them again, stating what each brought to the project. What each brought to project should be moved up, after first mention of founders, and the redundant paragraph deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.2.27 ( talk) 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Many schools don't like wikipedia because they think that the information is false. I wanted to see if that was true. So I edited (added) a sentence to Japan saying, "It is common knowledge that Japan is the largest country in the world." That edit was corrected within seconds. Should schools accept wikipedia as a reliable source of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan G14 ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: The following text was added into the middle of Ivan's post by User:86.163.172.151. To avoid making it seem like Ivan wrote this, I moved the information here. The inserted text read: Yes but... Wikipedia is edited by people without any knowledge other than that which they can confirrm [sic] though [sic] other internet searches. And, [sic] if you edit any living person's profile in a complimentary way (however flattering), it remains- but disagree with these compliments and you either need a citation or you're a vandal. Wikipedia is a lowbrow nerds' half accurate fact book designed by the poorly educated for the poorly educated. At least it keeps the editors/administratos [sic] /whatever they call themselves away from kiddie-fiddling for afew [sic] hours. (COME ON CENSOR ME IF YOU"RE GUILTY- 1st one to "revert" is the paedophile) (end of inserted text). Comment moved by Puchiko ( Talk- email) 21:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I will start with a bit of context, please bear with me. I was reading an article about hackers earlier today and they were talking about a 10 000$ fine,then I watched a movie about the civil war and tehy talk about 25$, 300$ and 1000$ and it got me thinking... how much is that worth?! Wouldin't it be possible to have pages show and automaticaly update a nominal value? For example, if someone got fined 1000 in 1977, it would be shown as
"1000 $(equivalent to 2000$ today)"
or if the fine was 1000$ in 2000 it would say:
"1000$ (equivalent to 1180$ today)"
and the multiplyer could be updated yearly but variable would keep the same name so that the algorithm would not have to be changed. The article would not be touched but would be automaticaly updated. This way we could have a table of multiplyers for different years\countries updated yearly or more if wanted and you just have to insert the line of code that applies to your contry (since inflation enormously varies from one country to an other).
Along the same lines, could we not have an automatic conversion to USD and\or €? (Being canadian I know that I would like to see it in CAD$ but hey, who am I kidding lol)
Julienrl ( talk) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Julien feb 11 2008
Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of GNU/Linux servers, 300 in Florida, 26 in Amsterdam and 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility in Soul.[48] Wikipedia employed a single server until 2004, when the server setup was expanded into a distributed multitier architecture. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache HTTP Server, and seven Squid cache servers.
220.133.92.72 ( talk) 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Since nearly all the terms related to Wikipedia (Wikimedia, MediaWiki, etc.) are easily confused by people finding out the " wikisphere", I was thinking of the idea of creating a new article titled Wikipedia (terminology) similar to British Isles (terminology) ( British Isles (disambiguation) is a redirect) and Netherlands (terminology) (and Netherlands (disambiguation)). But I prefer to request for comments before creating it because it's useless to write something if it's deleted a few while after. So what do you think of it? 16@r ( talk) 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Should there be mention of the fact that because it is so unreliable as a source of citation, WP is banned in most UK Universities? Does the same apply to other countries? Mike0001 ( talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
For convenience of the others, I cite Prof Wrong's addition:
There are several problems with it. The first sentence is a general fact; like a sky is blue. The article needs to contain information specific to Wikipedia. Maybe there are so many, too many, people who don't even know this general fact, but we are not here to preach them. This also applies to the first part of the second sentence. Finally, the last part of the second sentence is problematic because it's not specific enough. Like writing on a movie review, stating that many people didn't like the movie is not encyclopedic.
Having said this, I think this is an important point that the article hasn't adequately discusses. We all know, anecdotally, that many students (outside US) consult Wikipedia too and universities or professors have policies on the use. In short, the point is important, but the addition that made the point wasn't good. -- Taku ( talk) 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
How long does it take from me becoming an editor (this week) to being able to be a full administrator on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangola ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
any1 noticed sum tard has called us cock sucking deuch-bags on the description of the site thingy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki443556 ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"As of December 2007 !!!!you guys are cock sucking douche bags.," -- vandalism to be removed -- How can this happen is the page is protected?? 216.194.0.237 ( talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to mention a study done that found that about one percent of Wikipedia's contributors control most of the content, a good reference is an article at Slate here. — 134.139.135.84 ( talk) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
When I typed Wikipedia into the search bar on the left hand side I read for a minute and then came down to the 'Reliability and bias' section. There I found a really small spelling error that should be corrected. In the first paragraph of that headline is dispalyed here:
The Italic text is techonally a grammer error. I tried to fix it myself but the is a Wiki Personel Only Editing thing I guess. Just though I'd give you the heads up.
Ridem92
I propose that we merge the above article into here. While I believe the topic (Deletionism v.s. Inclusionism) is a valid encyclopedic topic because of the media coverage, I don't think it merits the detailed standalone article. The issue is not currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article, which is not good at all, and it seems to make sense to discuss it here in a succinct manner. -- Taku ( talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC) I mean the problem with the above article has to do with its "proportion". The "deletionism v.s. inclusionism" is a subtopic of the more general topic on "Wikipedia community", which is discussed in the content and internal section in this article. Giving far larger space for the subtopic rather than its parent topics makes little sense. Of course, one could argue that "Wikipedia community" (which is currently redirected to here) merits a standalone article, but that's another issue. General speaking, I think we need to have the less amount of text discussing Wikipedia and its related topics than we currently have. -- Taku ( talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody want to tell me why Vikipedia redirects to the Wikipedia article? Joelster ( talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
why do you need links and stuff when you have everything you need to know on the wikipedia site? just have the makers edit this and ur done, all facts are down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.235.205 ( talk) 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The last name of Aaron Swartz appears to be misspelled in entry no. 52. (A moment ago I corrected the same mistake (and added a hyperlink) in the section titled "Content and internal structure.") Fagiolonero ( talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a posting by Larry, I am wondering if we can use it as a source.... according to this letter, wikipedia was his idea and Jimmy was opposed to it initially. [ [8]] Sethie ( talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
i am sorry for vandliseing a good advance wars artical please accept my apology
and could you please tell me who sent my warning letter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.73.96 ( talk) 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are two different versions used, although the differences are only minor ones. -- 72.75.52.243 ( talk) 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the eponymous wikipedia entry should have a section on style, addressing the style in which wikipedia articles are written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwinslow s ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That's dumb no one cares what style the info's in as long as it's there and it's accurate. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.190.172.3 (
talk)
17:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This talk page has 69 KB (10460 words). This could cause a lot of technical issues so I think we should WP:Archive this talk page. I'd use the subpage method, cut-and-paste procedure. I'd leave the threads started in March 2008 still here, because they might still be active. What do you think? Note: If there are no objections by Wednesday, I will perform the archiving. Puchiko ( Talk- email) 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is what I see when I look at the article on Wikipedia:
http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii57/Moe_Epsilon/?action=view¤t=screenshot1.png
You can click to enlarge the image. No, that is not vandalism. The image shows the beginning of the header, Wikipedia, but then has several spaces of white until the infobox has passed. The text "(IPA: /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/, /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdiə...." immediately starts after the infobox. Is there some way to fix that? — Κaiba 12:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't this a featured article, I mean It's been on here for such a long time and seems okay... LOTRrules ( talk) 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The more important articles on wikipedia often have the padlock symbol, meaning that the ordinary user can't edit them. For example, today, I looked at the articles on "global warming", "Brezhnev", "The Soviet Union" and "wikipedia". I think I'm right in saying that all of these articles had the padlock symbol. A "no rules" version of wikipedia (i.e everyone allowed to edit anything) would be interesting, although no doubt some of its articles would be turbulent and ever-changing. It would also be interesting if several versions of an article were allowed; e.g. "Margaret Thatcher Article A", "Margaret Thatcher Article B", "Margaret Thatcher Article C", etc. Different points of view might emerge in the different versions. Another point: the writing style of wikepedia articles is worth commenting on; it's a rather unique style. [Martin] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.36.179 ( talk) 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone at my school had the smart idea to vandalize a post and now we cant edit wikipedia at my school could you lift this ban somehow because i love to edit things the right way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.73.96 ( talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Where is the word count for the English Wikipedia obtained? I looked at the page linked to by the second endnote, but couldn't find any word counts.-- Magicwith4 ( talk) 08:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I just deleted an external link which seems to urge readers to make POV edits. This was inserted - rather brazenly - as the very first external link, above even the multilingual portal. It's a link to an article in the Israeli publication Haaretz containing the following exhortation:
This link was inserted on February 3rd, almost two months ago, by David Shankbone. Am I mistaken, or is this not appropriate? Nonplus ( talk) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
this page shouldn't exist, we've had this discussion too many times, i feel like stopping contributing until this page is gone.
-- Harlequence ( talk) 03:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that showing an article on ourself would make Wikipedia look sort of...vain...but I never knew that featured articles could be barred from the main page. Could someone give me another example? (I read this from the FACs, I know this isn't FA anymore, don't worry). Teh Rote ( talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention why "Wikipedia" isn't called "wikipaedia" - I don't know why it is the case, but surely there must be a reason for the (deliberate?) spelling mistake? Bensonby ( talk) 12:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I've just never seen it spelt without the "ae" before. I thought it might be some subversive internet thing :-p
Its not an anglo-american difference is it? Bensonby ( talk) 14:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point about the "Wikipedia" being a name. My last name is "McMahon" and many people spell it "McMan". This upsets me.:(-- Wikimichael22 ( talk) 17:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimichael22 ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I heard on the news tonight (the article was at the end of the six o'clock news on BBC Radio 4, that today, Wikipedia saw its ten millionth article. If you go to this website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03 you will see how the BBC covered this story. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This article claims there are about 75,000 active contributors for this encyclopaedia. Is there any way to locate them back to the country of residence? Also, where are the requests to the server coming from? I would like to make a bubble map like this.
I was wondering if someone may type a story on their user page and leave it accessible to anyone who goes to their user page. I think that it may be a good idea for young writers who want to be critiqued, but want to stay hidden beneath their user name. Belazael ( talk) 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: The heading was added by User:Puchiko to improve clarity.
Hi! I hate to say this, but it seems wierd Wikipedia has an article about itself.-- Gladboy101 ( talk) 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a useful link if you want it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7347766.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.120.252 ( talk) 20:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to the comment by Gladboy101, the question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on itself has been raised many times before, and the unanimous agreement has been that it should. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
After correcting an error I made regarding the title of this new 45-minute documentary about Wikipedia (and repeating the error in the url of the citation because I had to work hurriedly from memory rather than being able to cut-and-paste), another editor undid the addition: [9] No problem, but I think this film is really worth a mention somewhere in the article, since it would be of interest to the average person looking up Wikipedia for the first time and is available to be viewed online at YouTube. Here is a direct link to the page I cited if anybody is interested in watching it and offering feedback on whether they think it is worthy of inclusion here:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/08/the-truth-according-to-wikipedia/ An unattributed source ( talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody get the feeling that this page is rediculously biased? I love Wikipedia just as much as the next addict, but I can't help feeling like this needs one of those {{POV}} tags. Anyone else? Lesserm ( talk) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC) By Ico
Given that Wikipedia has articles on Uncyclopedia and Conservapedia, would it be fair if it were to include a website on "antiWikipedia", the website dedicated to material deleted from Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if I can solicit some thoughts on the organization of the article. I don't want to be biased, but I think we should get rid of the criticism section. This is per Wikipedia:Criticism. Basically, the problem is that the language like "wikipedia has been criticized for such and such" is a poor writing style. The section also contains some general discussion not so related to the criticism of wikipedia. For example, I don't know why it discusses the idea of "stable versions" (and actually I'm not sure if the article needs to mention internal proposals within wikipedia.) As the aforementioned page suggests, it's best to get rid of the section and organize the article in terms of content, internal structure, history, cultural significance, etc. I think some parts of the criticism section should go to the history section. For example, the Seigenthaler incident might be better discussed in the history section because what is significant is not the incident per se, but its consequence; it led to the adaptation of policies or guidelines. -- Taku ( talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, adding a new section is probably a good idea, for the two topics are closely related. Just to clarify, I am not advocating simply deleting the criticism section, for wikipedia, has, as we all know, been receiving lots of criticism. In any case, I read some of your comments in wikipedia-related articles, and I think you and I seem to have the similar concern. For example, I'm with you on Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, which looks somehow out of place from an overall organization. I don't think we are alone in thinking some sort of clean-up is needed in this area, especially regarding organization of the materials.
Let me first respond to your suggestion at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia. (I want to keep the discussion at one place.) I don't think the "quality of wikipedia" or such is a good way to frame the topic. In my view, the issue is more about how the public interacts with wikipedia. Teachers don't like students using wikipedia for research; a notable public figure finding his biography containing erroneous information, etc. As I pointed above, scandals involving wikipedia has happened from time to time, and they will continue happening. It is best to note some of notable cases in the history section here or History of Wikipedia. I even suspect that the discussion of Nature's famous piece comparing wikipedia and britannica might belong to the history of wikipedia since the piece is rather old now and doesn't reflect the present status of wikipedia. The format at "Content and internal section" (not actual content) is probably close to what I have in mind; a general discussion without citing particular cases.
I wish I could be more articulate, but Richard001, I think, you seem to be unsure as well. Perhaps Wikipedia is a new thing, and it would not surprise me if we find ourselves wondering about how to discuss it. I think it might be better if we just start reorganizing using subpages basically by eliminating duplications and adding appropriate headings. That's probably what I'm going to do anyway because that should give me a better idea. -- Taku ( talk) 06:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wales spent £1 million on site maintenance in 2007. [10] How much of these is donor money? Anwar ( talk)
Note: The below text was originally added to the top of the talk page.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) moved it down here, added the section heading, and substituted {{
unsigned}} No edits to the text were made.
Wikipedia is a great concept. Any article can be created (in theory), it's open to criticism and anyone can contribute so the information should be correct. That's the good bit, then it goes bad: an admin is on standby to make sure all edits are encyclopedic. Like communism, power corrupts. You'll notice in edit histories that what remains in an article is an admin's view disguised by sources to make it look neutral. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.72.79.175 (
talk •
contribs)
21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
i have an issue with wikipedia and its self-imposed power. i heard about a small band in santa fe New mexico called shades of grey. I put all of the information i had in to a article on wikipedia but then some jerk deleted the article because of its lack of "notabilaty" they are jus starting out for goodness sake you high and mighty editors want more than there is for these people so just back off and instead of killing of musicans dreams get a F-ing life. Jesus!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxman101 ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned it a while back, but I'll raise it here again. The ever-present use of Portmanteau has become a bit of an in-joke among Wikipedians, and seeing it here in the lead section of our (just about) most prominent article adds to the word's mystique. But the correct term, if I'm not mistaken, is blend, more widely used by linguists and easier for a reader to understand. I know that Wikipedia's greatest weakness has been shown not to be its reliability, but its readability. Fishal ( talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
On April 23, 2008, El Tiempo, Colombia's highest circulation daily newspaper, mentioned Wikipedia on its front page, calling it "'God' of the web". front page (Spanish)
Unless calling Wikipedia a 'God' in a major nation-wide publication happens more often than I imagine? :) Kreachure ( talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I just skimmed the Hungary article, and I wanted to read it in another language. But since there were soooo many, I really spent some seconds looking for the button. Wouldn't it be easy to print the often used-languages boldly (for registered users)? That would be a real convenience! 212.41.80.236 ( talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel a bit stupid asking this, but I can't find any mention of this number 683 million in [11]. Also, even if the number is true, I think this "visitors" is "US visitors" not international, making it inappropriate to mention in the intro. -- Taku ( talk) 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Holy Crap; It is self-aware. That aside, it's creepy that Wikipedia can pass the Turing test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Variatas ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Clay Shirky and Martin Wattenberg estimate the effort to create Wikipedia at 100,000,000 man-hours. [12] GregorB ( talk) 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that the bubble map makes no sense? It really doesn't tell us much. Those red dots seem completely arbitrary and I have no idea what "top market" means (the internet doesn't give an immediate answer either). The creator's user page has some information about what exactly a bubble map is, but it seems sort of technical and doesn't help with reading the Wikipedia one.
I suggest that it should be removed
134.10.22.103 ( talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The most recent Alexa rank is 8, not 7. I'm an IP and can't update. 131.111.247.194 ( talk) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to add info from this article that talks about where we get our traffic. [13] - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
when you search up a song or anything related to a song it be better if the song could actually be played e.g:If you type oliver twist musical it will give you a whole list of songs they sung, it would be even better if you could hear those songs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.0.149 ( talk) 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
seems like the ¨long term abuse page guy¨ (guess he meant page abuse) will carry on until someone else has a go. Popular wikipedia topics are rather like mountains... and vandals like the mountaineers who will always have a go ¨because its there¨... or will the software get REALLY clever? 81.103.112.205 ( talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Today's Married to the Sea comic mentions Wikipedia; I'm just throwing this out there in case someone wants to add it to the "culture" section (like we need another comic there...). ~EdGl (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: The heading isn't by the original poster, it was added by
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) to improve the organization of the talk page.
wats up with the deletion of the matt sabia page?! someone help me out here —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dmac4 (
talk •
contribs)
04:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The Speedy Delete Option should not remove the page instantly, it should create a record or a log of the "to be deleted record" so if such needs to be disputed they page can be recovered other wise, you will lose potentially important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinkaz ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
should we perhaps change "...about the free encyclopedia..." to "...about the free wiki encyclopedia"?
are not we a wiki first? and an encyclopedia second. i get yelled at for bringing this up. if i'm wrong all i need is directions to another way to see this.
really i suppose i'm concerned because i want to take whichever view is best for wikipedia.
for now i feel that to consider ourselves an encyclopedia first, and a wiki second (if at all), would lack neutrality.
this could be our downfall, and i love this wiki more than any encyclopedia that has ever given me papercuts.
if you respond, understand the degree of sincerity in my suggestion and/or question. thank you.
-- Harlequence ( talk) 18:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this article is not notable enough for the wiki's standards and therefore this article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.243.6 ( talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In the history section, this sentence in the last paragraph it is not referenced
Technically a service mark, the scope of the mark is for: "Provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet".
Who defines the scope of the mark and under which terms? Is this a general and standard classification?
Besides, I corrected ref.30, (^ Jimmy Wales: "Announcing Wikimedia Foundation", 20 June 2003, <wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org>) which was pointing to a wrong ml message. Now it links to the correct announcement of the wikimedia foundation. Poderi ( talk) 14:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I rearranged the raw stacking order of the images of Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales within this article. If you had a screen resolution of something greater than 1024 (for example 1280, like my laptop monitor), the image of Larry was getting overlapped with text. After analyzing, I noticed that the Nupedia logo was bumping Jimbo down a little bit, and since Jimbo's picture was a little below the text, Larry's picture was put a little below the text too, causing text overlap. Trading the ordering of these two images fixed the problem. I just thought I should document this here so everyone knows why I traded them. Hopefully this makes sense. TIM KLOSKE| TALK 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed something, with "available languages" it says "236 active editions (253 in total)", which is obviously impossible since there are more active editions than total ones. However granted the fact that I'm not sure how many total editions there are, I decided to put this here while I try to find out. -- HAL talk 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
oh my god. he told you three times ! Machete97 ( talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should include some sort of refrence to the fact that this website is wikipedia. Thoughts? munchman | talk; 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposedly factual, but it is actually controlled by a secret cabal of republicans seated deep within the bowels of a dormant volcano. The people must know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.82.250.201 ( talk) 13:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. munchman | talk; 10:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there really nobody on Wikipedia's payroll at all? This is the question I would still like to have answered after reading this fascinating article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus Sonderriis ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think about Wikipedia in a certain instant of time you realize its definitely NOT a trustable source of information because somebody looking for fun might have edited the article some seconds before you copy the information to use as reference. I personally never get nothing from wikipedia, i only use its as comparative with my other sources. An open online encyclopedia is something that can grow but will never be part of people's choices when they are looking for genuine content.
Yes, on wikipedia Jesus Christ might have been an American president.
Answer: thank you! So, is WikiMedia's "developers" only making software? Has absolutely no-one been paid, for instance, for such a fabulous range of high-quality science entries? Or do some donors contribute by paying for other people's man hours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus Sonderriis ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added a link to wiki race in the culture section of this article... I haven't made many edits and I don't know if it is the type of content you want within this article. The wiki race article is new and needs links to it, which is why it is here. If it is not appropriate just reply to tell me why and in what context and which articles it should be linked to by. Wuzzie ( talk) 10:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, well, I found this grammar mistake in the page if you would please change it. Here is the sentence:
Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[4] it currently the largest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work available on the Internet.
As you can see, "...it currently the largest..." isn't grammatically correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincer 17 ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I administer Ultipedia, a site largely inspired by Wikipedia, but degfdsgfdgsdfgfdicated to capturing the culture surrounding Ultimate (sport). I have been discussing integrating articles from another source which are currently under a CC-BY-SA-NC license. Since I have written most of the content on Ultipedia I am not adverse to changing licenses, but the notion of continuing to deal with cross-licensing issues is very unappealing. Is it likely that Wikipedia will change licenses ? In order to maximise cross pollination efforts with Wikipedia (both present and future), what would be the best license to use for a nascent wiki ? Ivasara ( talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In the final paragraph of "History" section there's a citation needed tag on the text of wikipedia's trademark. I'm just a newb and don't know all the editing procedures, and I'm not sure if this link is permanent, but here is the url for the United States Patent and Trademark Office's TARR page for the Wikipedia trademark: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78483359 The text "Providing information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet" can be found under the section "Goods and Services". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.144.250 ( talk) 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this tedious saga back up but I was surprised after all the debate which has gone on that this article has certain references to "who is the founder" where really none is necessary. I have removed a paragraph-opening sentence, "Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the founders of Wikipedia." It seems unnecessary to make such a firm pronouncement without mentioning controversy over the name. The history of article goes into the foundership in well-handled detail anyway. I also rephrased a couple of references to Jimbo as "Jimmy, the founder" and "co-founder Jimmy" to "founder Jimmy" which does the job of informing who it is we're talking about but leaves it open as to whether he is the only founder or whatever.
I hope that wasn't jumping the gun too much but thought I'd explain the reasoning here. BigBlueFish ( talk) 11:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Amina. I am in middle school. My teacher says that it may not be good to use Wikipedia for research because anyone can edit it, and some stuff could be inaccurate. Can we discuss this topic and what we feel about it? I am just curious about what others would say. Thanks! I will create a Wikipedia account soon. -- 65.190.208.212 ( talk) 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here is my account: -- Amina96 ( talk) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
what is it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.252.29 ( talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Their should be a section about criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 ( talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Are all laguage versions of Wikipedia using the same MediaWiki version as en.wikipedia.org? I do not think so! Lets put it in the article.-- Kozuch ( talk) 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What time does Wikipedia use? It is currently a couple of minutes past midnight (in England), but when I sign this, it will say it has just gone 11. Why???
DineshAdv ( talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I just saw the page just have 2 contributions. The talk page was even non-existant. What happened? Arienh4 (Talk) 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a question. Do people who stop and reverse vandalism, add pages, and edit work for Wikipedia? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.62.141.11 (
talk)
07:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My middle fingers, those ones.
The criticism section mentions repeatedly various critics and commentators but, never says who. The question I and possibly other want to now is what critics and commentators feel that Wikipedia has problems and for that matter what are their EXACT complaints? I my opinion even a few limited examples would help here. So I made up a template to (I hope) help. Here is a simple to follow template for the Wikipedia criticism section.
Insert the info, write the citation, and you're done.
"Many (insert method of communication.)(I.E. T.V.) commentators feel that Wikipedia is flawed. One such person is(insert commentator that operates on that method of communication.) I.E. Lou Dobbs) who feels/believes that Wikipedia is flawed because (insert reason here) I.E. loss of print encyclopedia business and further slump in the economy.)(Cite RELIABLE source here.)
Below is a simple example of this template.
Many T.V. commentators believe Wikipedia is flawed. One such person is Lou Dobbs who strongly believes that Wikipedia is has problems because he believes that it could put print encyclopedia out of business. Thereby leading to a further loss of jobs and an increased slump in the economy. [Random number of cititation.]
(P.S. Lou Dobbs was the only commentator who I could think of at the time.) Rengaw01 ( talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a line in the article which reads Wikipedia is a project that attempts to summarize all of human knowledge. I dispute this, given that WP:NOTE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE both say that there are notability requirements for articles on here. -- JediLofty User Talk 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
To quote Knowledge in Wikipedia,
Since we are talking "human knowledge", I think that means knowledge that is known to humanity. (Not to a particular single human being.) Local knowledge, for instance, may be knowledge according to (ii), but it is not quite human knowledge. -- Taku ( talk) 22:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. It says "Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge." So, it is correct to say that the aim of the project is for the sum of human knowledge (though "summarize" may not be the best word, because we often have very detailed account of historical events, for instance.) -- Taku ( talk) 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The spoken version of this article differs significantly from the current text. Should this be removed until updated? RaphytheTurtle ( talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a forum linked to Wikipedia for general discussions. I think it would fit in well. Place a "discuss" button at or near the top of every article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 ( talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
therefore I went to discussion.
to wikipedia: you said that i could edit this article.actually,i cant because everytime i see the small lock on upper right corner that means i cant edit. 96.235.133.35 ( talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Register a user name and you will not have this problem. You are more anonymous with a user name then without. JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
How do we put comments for answering questions? sorry, if im stupid but im new here. chessmate92 ( talk) 00:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What chesemate meant was how do you reply to a certain comment —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.216.24.234 (
talk)
10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Why does "Wikipedia 1.0" forward here? There's nothing about Wikipedia 1.0 in the text and I'm wondering what it is. Dazjorz ( talk) 11:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Wikipedia is using their article about themselves is being used for their own purposes. To defend this point, I have made a list of proof.
1. They say that Wikipedia is the “most popular work of general reference on the internet”. Though Wikipedia is becoming increasingly popular, there is no practical way to measure this, and therefore, that statement is just an assumption.
2. They said that Wikipedia is attempting to “summarize all human knowledge”. First of all, there is no way to do that, and they are aware of that. Secondly, they never said that that was their goal any time before. In fact, another article said that they are not trying to do that. They would have said that to get people interested in their project.
3. Also, in the criticism section, they seldom say any names of the people who criticized them. Could this be used so that people would forget about the flaws and enjoy Wikipedia?
4. At the top of the talk page, they say that their article is a Technology and Engineering Good Article. You can figure that they would describe the article about themselves as good.
5. Finally, they stated in the discussion page that the answer to the question of whether or not there should be an article about them “is a definite yes”. They hat obviously said that so that the article wouldn’t be removed and people would still be able to read that article.
Fellow wikipedians, I do love Wikipedia and use it regularly, but it removes from the quality of the work to have such a self serving article. Perhaps Wikipedia could be more humble in these types of articles. -- Ojay123 ( talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
should Wikipedia have an article on itself
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.182.198 ( talk) 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it odd that an effort hasn't been made to bring this page to featured article status?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancron ( talk • contribs)
It's full of grammatical mistakes too. Probably not ready to be featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 ( talk) 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to find out what led to the Wikipedia community's success in attracting admins? How did people get started as administrators, and what incentives are there for editors to become more involved? Any help would be much appreciated, -- Tishadejmanee ( talk) 15:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
My friends and I (and most everyone I know) uses the term "wiki-rampage", "wikipedia rampage" or similar statements to denote the fact that one can link click on links to a chain of references so that one forgets the original topic he/she was pursuing. I think it deserves an article or something more prevalent in the definition of Wikipedia, as it is used more and more often as a tangible reference.
[ [14]] Probably not quite what you're looking for, but I bet the forum replies to this might be a good place to start. EagleFalconn ( talk) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Over the last 2 days while I have been viewing various pages of wikipedia I have come across some sort of apparent hack. The articles of whatever page I was viewing have been replaced by total black, with various messages in white text by sombody known as "zodiac", as well as a code of some sort apparently including his social security number and a picture of a celtic style cross. I am extremely curious to know what exactly is known about this "zodiac" thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.24.27 ( talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this true? A reference (that is this one [15]) is given, but I can't find this number mentioned in the source. The source says only that the monthly traffic is 53,312,459. I also don't think why the traffic from the US is relevant in the lead section. I mean, why US?, which is just a country. -- Taku ( talk) 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The population of the US is less than half of that... oh I see. They mean annual traffic. 53.3 mil x 12 = 683 mil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 ( talk) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
So, the mystery remains. I really don't think the number was made up, I just couldn't figure out its source. As to the second point, you're right. "annual traffic" isn't the same as the average annual traffic. But the phrasing "Wikipedia attracts X million visitors annually" would suggest "average annual traffic", I think, (as opposed to, say, "in 2007 Wikipedia attracted X visitors".) For the record, I'm not against the inclusion of this kind of information; it's just the numbers have to be verified. -- Taku ( talk) 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed
" In a 2008 interview, Jimmy Wales said that the foundation spent $2 million of donor money in 2007 toward site maintenance costs. [2] The foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, a for-profit company founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. The Wikimedia Foundation received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the fiscal year ending June 30 2006. [3]
In The New York Times in March 2008, Wales discussed a possible trivia game based on Wikipedia. [4]
from the paragraph it was pasted in. I think part of this text should (could) be reinserted in another paragraph, but probably not the same. Basically, most of that stuff belong to history now. I find a headtitle in this article "Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia" slightly misleading to say the least. Wikia has not done anything special for our project for the past 2 years, except for sponsoring Wikimania (and yet, we do not mention sponsors in that page). Historically speaking, it is interesting to note that Wikimedia Foundation received 6000 dollars worth for office space from Wikia in 2006, but does this information REALLY belong to the Wikipedia article ? I think not. Also, the paragraph still mentions that the Foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, which is clearly incorrect. I think that unless people can prove that this is true, it does not belong to this page.
Regarding the "possible trivia game", I think it is really a detail. Seriously, the Foundation staff (now operating the Foundation) is in charge of such decisions, not Jimbo. And the Foundation staff receive dozen of such proposals every month. What is really important in the long run ? What is really set up (eg, a DVD version, a print version etc...), or the mention that Jimbo thought a trivia game might be done, perhaps, one day, in the future, if such is decided by the staff and a good deal is proposed.
Last, I decided to mention chapters. This is bold, in particular in the english version. But to be fair, some chapters have a serious influence on some languages (eg, the german chapter on the german wikipedia) and several have contributed serious money (FAR more serious than the 6000 dollars worth from Wikia). Not mentionning chapters but putting a headline about Wikia... seems to me to not be reflecting the reality of what is happening right now.
Please discuss :-)
Anthere ( talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Why just audio file? My dog ate my speakers! Thanks. 124.102.43.240 ( talk) 01:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
A single line in the lede had a {{ Who?}} tag placed on it by an editor with the edit summary: weasel wording!. The line in question is:
To remove the weasel wording, with an edit summary of clarified scholarly work based on references supplied I changed it to:
This got reverted with the edit summary: But the lead isn't a place to get into details; it is ok to give only a summary in the lead
I then removed the {{ Who?}} tag with the edit summary of: then we need to remove the "Who? tag also. I was just responding to another editors request for clarification as to who said those things
The {{ Who?}} tag was then reinserted with an edit summary of: weasel wording
Someone needs to give in, either we need to clarify who wrote the scholarly works like my edit did or we don't but either way the {{ Who?}} tag needs to come out. Jons63 ( talk) 13:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
We should change the picture of the Wikipedia to be the picture of the article itself, creating an infinite loop. I believe that the enormous power of Wikipedia would create a Wormhole, thus unlocking the key to time travel! People would then be able to travel through time by going to time travel article, or to the article on a past or future date. The only problem is that this might cause the Universe to implode. GBizzle ( talk) 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hilarious as the inclusion of 'recursion' in the See Also section is, it probably counts as a self-reference to avoid; not only is it inaccurate on a mirror of the article, it's likely to be confusing if readers don't know where the article origniated. Any objections if I remove it? Olaf Davis | Talk 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
On 9 august 2008 the Dutch version of wikipedia was censored officially by a moderator. In the article nl:Lijst van vrijmetselaars uit België (list of Belgian freemasons) the history was partially deleted. In recent months it was debated if living belgian freemasons were to be included in the list. Because of worries for 'privacy' it was decided by the moderators only to include dead freemasons. All living freemasons were strikken from the list. After written conversation with the official Belgian 'commissie voor de bescherming van de persoonlijke levenssfeer', the official Belgian privacy commission, the history was censored and deleted were you could find historical edits of living freemasons. After a request to publish the documents ordering this action, the moderator would only publish excerpts, and not the full letters of the government body.This proces was later repeated on the history of my personal page (in which i had copied everything nl:Gebruiker:Stijn_Calle). So this amounts to self-sensorship done by wikipedia moderators themselves.
Note: Belgian privacy law is only applicable on Belgian territory. The server of the dutch Wikipedia is not geographically situated in Belgium, but in the US or another country outside the US. Thus Belgian law is not applicable on these servers.
Remark: Winston Smith's job in the ministery of truth (1984) was destroying past history and replacing it. This is happening in Belgium ON wikipedia. There is a name for this kind of action: censorship.-- Stijn Calle ( talk) 08:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)