![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I have an idea, but I'm not sure if it's ever been discussed before. To make Wikipedia a better place, and more useful (as in teachers will stop banning Wikipedia from research use), is it possible to have every edit go through a verification process where moderators decide if an edit is true, or if it is false and/or vandalism? This verification will occur before every post is viewable to the public. This will give the moderators more work, but hey, we could just request more moderators! And its not like this website is the easiest to moderate in the first place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.230.195 ( talk) 02:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That is kind of insane. There is just too much information added daily for the people to verify. The number of moderators needed would be obtuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.65.225 ( talk) 05:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
How do you make a template like the see also one where you can add pipes within the template brackets and then add article titles. I need to make a template like this. Where I can write something like { {exampletemplate|title of an article} } Daniel Christensen ( talk) 02:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is for issues pertaining to the Wikipedia article itself.-- 69.248.1.200 ( talk) 12:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph says "Wikipedia's 13 million articles (3 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers," and "volunteers" links to the [[Volunteer|general volunteer page]. I think it should link to the [Virtual_volunteering|virtual volunteering] page instead, since these are specifically online volunteers, rather than traditional onsite volunteers, especially since Wikipedia is one of the largest examples of virtual volunteering. Comment by: User:Jcravens42
Wikipedia article does not contain any information about the new beta feature nor any content about wikipedia's future. Wikipedia staff should do something about this.
According to Wikitech [1] [2] and Ganglia, there are no longer Wikipedia servers in Korea, though even Meta-Wiki hasn't been updated and there seems to be no up-to-date server layout diagram.
Any thoughts on adding a section on Criticism of Wikipedia? I know there is already an article dedicated to it, but having a section that sums it up briefly on here would be helpful. In it we can have a link (such as 'main article: Criticism of Wikipedia). I would draft it, but I'm not autoconfirmed yet, and this article is semi-protected. If nobody minded waiting a few days I could probably do it then or send it to somebody who is confirmed.-- Alang814 ( talk) 02:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have recently tried to contribute to some articles on Wikipedia only to be rudely deleted and told off by other users. I simply can't understand how Wikipedia can claim to be free to contributors when in the end if someone doesn't agree with you they simply delete your message and start calling your comments vandalism. I really find this amazing. These 'guardians' of wikipedia are abusing wikipedia's most cherished principle of freedom of speech and expression. My comments were not rude but researched facts which did not agree with hard core long-term users. Some users even threatened to stop me from posting again. How can they possibly have such power and be the judges of comments. I would like to open a discussion about this. I think these wiki bullies are acting totally inappropriately. I just found this article which supports what I'm saying:- http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10309840-71.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 ( talk • contribs)
(facepalms) We don't need this page. This wiki doesn't have enough room for pages ABOUT ITSELF. Seriously, we don't need pages for everything in the universe. -pgj1997 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.126.240 ( talk) 04:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please change
Except for a few particularly vandalism-prone pages, every article may be edited anonymously or with a user account
to
Except for a few particularly vandalism-prone pages and pages that are part of the Pending changes trial, every article may be edited anonymously or with a user account
because
As currently written, the article is incorrectly. Pages that are part of the Pending changes trial cannot be edited anonymously.
71.109.148.127 ( talk) 21:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done Not quite right; certain flagged pages in the PCT can still be edited by anonymous editors, but their edits do not become visible until accepted. Since this may change when the trial ends, I don't see much point changing it for now.
Rodhull
andemu
21:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change Edits to specified articles would be "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication." to A trial is now in progress. During the trial, edits to specified articles are "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication." because current version of article incorrectly uses future tense to describe something that already began. 71.109.148.127 ( talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering if anyone here thought that this video might be useful? File:Editing_Hoxne_Hoard_at_the_British_Museum.ogv. It is the timelapse of part of the editing process at the Hoxne Challenge event held at the British Museum last week. I was the instigator of that event and so I'm obviously personally fond of the video :-) However, I also think that it might be the best/only video of Wikipedia being actually edited by actual people. Because the premise of the day was to get experts from the museum and wikipeida into the room together I think this is a unique video and therefore potentially valuable for this article. What do you think? Currently the video is in-use at the British Museum-Wikipedia collaboration page here Wikipedia:GLAM/BM Witty Lama 14:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Consider adding: "A number of third party applications are using information on Wikipedia as their main source of information. Wikify, for example, is adding Wikipedia links to all words in a text which have corresponding article on Wikipedia. A project using Wikipedia's multi-language feature to translate special terms between different languages exists [Citatioin needed]." Spidgorny ( talk) 09:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
When I accessed the Alexa page, Wikipedia came up as 7th in the world, and 6th in US. Should we still keep the ranking, or should we change it to 7th? Pooh4913 ( talk) 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In an era when increasing numbers of companies are installing tracking software on users' computers, it was interesting to see where Wikipedia came out in this study by The Wall Street Journal. [3] MarmadukePercy ( talk) 16:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
In the list of most viewed articles for 2009, favicon is listed number four. The source is the Telegraph, which has a listing for "favicon.ico" at number four. Unless there was some greta media interest in facvicons during 2009, isn't this probably a slightly wobbly source, where the WP favicon has been interpreted as being an article? And, for that matter isn't "wiki" (placed at number one) probably the main page, not the article wiki?-- FormerIP ( talk) 09:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's systematic and proven liberal bias is well-known and well discussed - but yet this controversy is not mentioned at all in Wikipedia's article. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00Eregos00 ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not a forum for discussion about Australian politics, :( "supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation[citation needed]" It says this in the article. This is Wikipedia do we REALLY need to cite where the funding from this website comes from? They say it all the time on the site and if you can't trust Wikipedia about their funding then can you trust them about their database or whatever, no. So please who ever put "supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation[citation needed]" take down citation needed, it just looks dumb. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to get to the point, fast, and I don't want to spend time articulating it in a different manner. Thank you
Cozzycovers (
talk)
07:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm just kidding, I just like splitting hairs. I mean don't we all on the discussion page? of course I should not even be saying this on this page b/c it has nothing to do with improving the article anymore. 66.231.146.77 ( talk) 08:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that, although Wikipedia RAVES on and on and on about how it is UNCENSORED and that it is all about cold hard facts (with a credited source of course) - and I am not trying to be mean, this is usually true - even sensative material is uncensored, no matter how much it might affend someone, it something is relavent to the article and properly sourced, it stays.
But i JUST CANT help but notice that the wikipedia page itself is CENSORED - that is - only "special" people can edit the page. Not some nobody like me. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia!" WRONG. "Uncensored" WRONG - yeah I know, it says in a couple places that "anyone can edit ALMOST every page" but not everywhere, and certainly not the people who I See on the talk pages - the advanced users, you know the ones who CONSTANTLY (and ignorantly) just post wikipedia rules instead of answering someone. BE BOLD they say - even on this page a heavy contributer says "Anyone can edit Wikpiedia. You can!"
Although in my experience here both of those things are true Much, MUCH more than not - it should not be part of Wikipedia's constant boastings about itself, and policies unless its true 100% of the time. Yeah Yeah I know, the Vandalism - but I never did any Vandalism, so why am I unable to edit a page like this? AND how do I know that this page or others were vandalized? Maybe wikipedia might abuse that notion on pages they don't want edited. Now, I am only half-kidding about this article, Im sure it was vandalized like there is NO tomorrow, but for many pages, I am unable to edit. Wikipedia keeps track of EVERYONE, user or not - even if you dont post any signiture, it eventually pulls your IP address. Why didn't they just ban people who vandalized - a month, then a year, then forever (banned from editing that is).
If wikipedia does not allow EVERY LAST article to be edited by ANYONE, than it is censored, because there is no way for a person like me to know WHY was an article shut down - I can see the old versions of the article? so what - anyone can type anything, real or fake. And I have no way of knowing who DOES get to contribute - people who donate? people who have been on wiki forever and edited 1000's of times and are obviously in love with wikipedia and will stay in its favor and bias? workers of wikipedia?
There are other approaches to vandalism, and until one is put into action, i belive wikipedia is partially censored - which is simply censorship, and I will find some credable source that defines censorship in a manner similar to this - and when I do I will request it be put on the wikiepdia article - and if it is not, then I will piss and moan, and cry like a little girlie baby wuss, and ill lock myself in my room and I won't come out till I'm 30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyo14 ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is only for discussions concerning Wikipedia's article on itself. Oh yeah, and where'd you get the idea that Wikipedia is censored? Nobody else says it's censored. The pages being locked are locked for a very good reason: We can't let vandals put false information on them.-- 69.248.1.200 ( talk) 12:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe it's necessary to have that Weird Al's image as its message "you suck!" is clearly directed to Atlantic Records and in the context it seems directed towards Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.207.174 ( talk) 08:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been using wikipedia as a source of information for my homeworks, and just for reading some articles. In school, my classmates keep telling me that wikipedia is not a reliable source and I asked why. Well, they just simply replied that they keep editing some pages and put wrong data into it. In my opinion, I think that wikipedia must not let these "editors" edit any more page, but this is simply a tedious task therefore I suggest that wikipedia remove the anonimity of the "editors" or any editor in general.
This is another topic that I want to discuss.
There are pages in which we can find the summary of books, novels, short stories, etc. I personally think that there is nothing wrong with it but the users just abuse it. They do not read anymore the real books assigned to them by the teacher and they would not even read the summary from wikipedia just copy and paste then print. Honestly, there are times that I passed my homework by just copying, pasting and printing(of course i wrote the source) without reading any part of it at all.
The idea of wikipedia is a total marvel it's just that people misunderstand its purpose and abuse it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekfreak gf ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Has Wikipedia really been around since 2001? I have some vague recollections of some kind of online encyclopedia around the early 2000s, but I don't think it was until the end of 2003, maybe 2004 that links to Wikipedia articles showed up in my Yahoo! searches. What have other people's experiences been? I'm just curious. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 02:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
As far as I can tell, the suffix of Wikipedia is Latin first declension, so it's plural is Wikipediae, not Wikipedias.
205.193.96.10 ( talk) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, in the section titled "Coverage of Topics", add a colon into the first item in the bulleted list. Thank you. Sean Michael (Seaners 2010) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaners 2010 ( talk • contribs)
Just wanted to let you know that there is an overlap of image and text in the Cultural Significance section of the Wikipedia article. Nothing major, but the edit would make the page look a bit more neat. Thanks. DethariusXXX ( talk) 06:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)DethariusXXX
Could you please fix your edit-conflict function. I am sick of giving time and thought to my edits and contributions only to have my contributions deleted by an "edit-conflict" message as soon as I submit them. No wonder people are leaving Wikipedia in droves. I might care enough about an issue to edit it once, but after my time and thought gets deleted by an "edit conflict" I just close and move on (I have a mortgage to pay). PLEASE FIX THIS!!! Do you want quality submissions or not? 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 11:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've redirect it from this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics. Makes more sense, I believe (and this article does not even have an economy section, not that Wikipedia has an economy, I think, anyway...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, could someone add the info that the pedia in Wikipedia is greek: ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία Like the Wiki is from hawaian,...
thx
Marasia (
talk)
08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
should state that this article is ON wikipedia, so that if someone is looking up Wikipedia and gets to this page, they will realize they are using Wikipedia (or a mirror) to view it! 84.153.222.232 ( talk) 12:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Please may someone fix it because the Map image says CY on Crete (Greece)...instead of the island of Cyprus to the east (south of Turkey). Says cannot discuss on the Image's discussion page and should discuss here/request Graphics team to change it Eugene-elgato ( talk) 19:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't this page fully proteced (admin edits only)? It has been vandalised so many times I can't believe normal users can still edit it. たか はり い 05:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression anyone could edit Wikipedia, but the more I use it and dive deeper the more I find, this is not the case at all; anyone can not edit Wikipedia (and have it stick). The article under Meritocracy indicates Wikimedia could be considered to operate under such a principle, which would mean that contributions and contributors with lower levels of merit or without merit are quickly quashed. Therefore, no, everybody can not edit Wikipedia. Dumb monkeys are excluded.
A person in fact has to be a highly skilled Wiki mentality editor to edit Wikipedia; there is a steep learning curve and a whole set of editing rules you have to learn. Most people do not write in the highly self critical, highly rule based neutral style for a newspaper, let alone an encyclopedia.
Wikimedia claims 4,000 editors, yet there are roughly 6 billion people in the world. That is less than .00006% of the world's population. 99.99994% of the rest of the world, yes, could try... but I wonder how many of them are anywhere near qualified by Wiki baseline standards (whatever they are) within such an Editocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 ( talk) 12:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia has 1,766 administrators as of November 29, 2010. The admins are the de facto authors of Wikipedia. In the end, anything this tiny group of people disagrees with will be deleted or altered to conform to their Weltanschauung. Wasp14 ( talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm a college student. If we even cite Wikipedia in research papers, we get flunked. There's a reason for it e.g. many times I have googled entire paragraphs as the search term--it returned more than just Wikipedia (sometimes, something even more credible--yes I am saying people on here plagiarize). Wikipedia's only use for academic work I have found is that it serves as a springboard to credible sources of information. 216.228.249.43 ( talk) 18:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
How does the counter work? {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} - does it include the number of disambiguation pages? Is it possible to know the number of disambiguation pages? Thanks — Ark25 ( talk) 07:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Preston Papie Corporal (born March 9, 1987) is a Liberian player who plays in the Canadian Soccer League for Hamilton Croatia.
Club career
Born in Liberia,Lower Buchanan, Grand Bassa County, Preston a striker, started his professional football career at Liberian club Watanga FC, where he became a key player at the club and won the Liberia Football Association Most Value Player Award in 2003. One year later he made a stint with Liberia premiership club Invincible Eleven (IE). Later that year, he was called up on the Under 20, Liberia National team and made his debut against the Leone Star of Sierra Leone in an International friendly in 2004 and made his latest appearance for the Liberia National Senior team in the 2010 World Cup qualifier against Algeria in 2008.In November 2005 he made his way to the continent of Asia.
After an unsuccesful trial with DPMM of Brunei, he landed in Malaysia and made it with Angkantan Tentera Malaysia (ATM) in the Malaysia M-League.
In his first year, Preston bagged a total of 36 goals in all competitions and help ATM to win two Championships that year. In his second season with ATM, Preston made a short appearance in India with Mohammedan Sporting Fc. A club that was struggling relegation battle in the India top flight league.Searching for a striker who could save Mohammed Sporting Fc season by scoring goals on a regular basis, the scout recommended Preston after hearing about and watching the impressive striker in action , Mohammedan quickly signed him for a 4 months loan.
After ending his 4 Months Contract with Mohammedan Sporting Fc in India, the prolific striker return to Malaysia with his club ATM. After 2 more seaons with ATM he fianlly moved to Jamaica and played for Village United.
Andwesseh (
talk)
17:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The top of the page is vandalised, you should fully lock it.
Fernpwns8 ( talk) 16:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Researching to see if wikipedia was declining, I found this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/25/wikipedia-editors-decline and read this:
which was in response to every previous comment which had only negative to say about the project and it made me wonder if wikipedia is the largest ad free site in the world, which I'll bet it is. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 08:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not put a graph of the amount needed in donations along the years? I remember that in the past (some years ago) Wikipedia needed much less in donations than it needs this year (16 million dollars). It would be interesting to put a graph all the values it needed in all these years since its creation. Thanks! (and sorry my bad grammar, but you got the point!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.49.112 ( talk) 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
My original question was what exactly it means when the article describes the GFDL as "not suitable for online reference works" which I changed to say it "was not considered suitable" and added a clarification tag to. On further inspection, this section also needs to use secondary sources rather than pages on Wikimedia's own projects. It's my understanding that there are issues with both using primary sources too much and referencing wiki pages that any person can change. Andreona ( talk) 10:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out what the most viewed articles in 2010 were? I don't think anyone cares about 2009 anymore. – Homestar-winner 03:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel that there should be some sort of a warning on this page regarding possible inaccuracies in this specific article; sort of a conflict of interest header template? -- Matthew Bauer ( talk) 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Shame I can't put it right :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.47.162 ( talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
I feel there should be sections regarding general criticisms of Wikipedia, including the issues of difficulty of posting, the lack of user friendliness for editing, and the various concerns of people regarding whether this is good source, even though it has become the main source people use, and the privacy implications for people whose biography are shown as an article. 67.169.72.25 ( talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised that there was no section on criticisms in this page, when that is a pretty common feature among others. Generally, this page conveys a strong sense of bias, where every complaint or criticism is met by a rebuttal.
Let me tell you why I came to this page. I started with an objection about editing. I went to a page that purported to explain Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. It was impenetrable. There seemed to be no clear structure, just a piled-up accumulation of possibilities. So then I came here and, lo, this page is even worse. Are all these paragraphs of text really about Wikipedia, in something other than the general sense that the whole world is about Wikipedia? With all the overpolicing of individual articles that goes on in the name of quality control, one would expect to see some sort of editorial discipline here, of all places -- with, specifically, a criticisms section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raywood ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no criticism or controversy section on Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be biased even to itself. I have probably am not the only one to make this complaint. 216.105.64.140 ( talk) 05:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that it is time for it to be noted the Wikipedia is basically the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.49.80 ( talk) 21:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The talk page on Wikipedia:about has been protected from editing. Now why would anyone "protect" a talk page? 173.183.66.173 ( talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This NYT article talks about a gender imbalance on Wikipedia:
How about information on (1)Number of edits made (2)Number of registered users (3) Number of administratros, stewards etc. or links to pages where such information is available. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 08:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth is my search-entry Five pillars of Wikipedia redirected here to the overall article on Wikipedia? The aimed for article exists ( five pillars of wikipedia) and I wanted to re-view it. I don't know how to change such frustrating redirections. It feels very manipulating. I hope someone may help, thank you. -- Xact ( talk) 02:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC))
This question is regarding a peculiar discussion at Wikipedia:Norway. In Norwegian we have the word for both 'neutral' (nøytral) and objective (objektiv), still the Objective is preferred for Neutral in the translation. I intuit this as pertaining to a policy, which challenges the original neutrality policy of wikipedia. Also neutrality has a political colour, so to say, in Norway, cause this is traditionally associated with the Swedish political mainstream ideal. This may be a cause for the situation in Norway.. Nevertheless I find the Norwegian translation of this pillar very problematic. Objectivity is quite another ideal from neutral point of view. Objectivity is far more conservative in relation to established order and authority, than what is neutrality. The neutral is a possible ground within a process, wheras objectivity relates to an hypothetical end-product. The Wikipedia will never result in a publishable encyclopedia (an object). It will constantly be in a dynamic process. Wikipedians should not, I think, regard Wikipedia as inferior to an Encyclopedia. It will stay as something else, and it will continune to influence the way we (including the academic community) are thinking in terms of methodology. Theory is a practice in this new paradigm. Wikipedia is far ahead of the encyclopedias in disclosing this binarism (Theory & Practice). Still I'm somehow afraid of the conflict on Wikipedia:Norway. I hope it is not symptomatic. There's obvious efforts to sort of tame Wikipedia in regard of its seminal influence. I think it is an strategic error to present Wikipedia as the free encyclopedia, cause it signals an upper limit in reference to the very much better, but not so cheap encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica. On the other hand Wikipedia is a better wikipedia than any of the other efforts from the encyclopedic publishers to encounter the challenge. I wonder what the opinions are at this English section about the Norwegian case? -- Xact ( talk) 03:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Can those in the know add an overview, either under this sub-section or in a new sub-section, of the software technologies and techniques used on Wikipedia? For example, we've been told that javascript is used by "gadget" developers; the (new?) GeoIP servers are used to customize how pages are delivered (and maybe for load balancing?); CSS and templates are used to format the pages. By putting it here, hopefully it would also be kept up-to-date. (There doesn't seem to be anything like this in the Technical Village Pump, and I don't know where else to look). Metafax1 ( talk) 03:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This would be under a separate heading. Wikipedia does not take a journalistic approach to things. given examples. evolution is presented as a fact, where anything contrary to it is a myth. this abounds in many of the articles referring to a supernatural belief. they seem to give a point of view of the leftest, stating science as proven fact and religion as crazy people. when in fact, scientific FACT keeps changing. up until the last year we all came from Africa 200,000 years ago. it was not questioned, it was a fact. well the fact has changed now to represent we came from Israel region 400,000 years ago. the skew points left, to articles being written, edited, and moderated by those with little to no belief in any type of God; or a belief that they themselves are God. the BC AD, BCE CE debate is another great example. we work on a calender that was based on an approximate year of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefor BC and AD are appropriate when referring to anything before the year 1BC and after the year 1AD. BCE and CE cannot be used, and are not interchangeable in this dating system. by all means, one can use what ever calendar they choose. however we are in the year 2011AD. 2011 years after the estimate of Jesus' birth.
so i believe there should be an entry on the Wikipedia wiki, listing a criticism of a leftist editing base, and an explanation of the reasoning.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia Scoobydoo4ever ( talk) 14:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the allegations of bias, I was going to be rude and point out the American bias in the OP's question, liberal being a generally positive and complimentary word in most of the world outside the USA, but felt that it's better to educate than criticise. The other area for our IP's education is the nature of science. Of course what science knows keeps changing. It's a matter of always seeking better explanations. To believe that all is explained in an unchanging dogma from thousands of years ago takes a faith that many of us cannot find. I suspect our OP is happy to accept the newer findings of medical science. Now, as for calling it leftist... That criticism I cannot comprehend. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
[5] This is a bad illustration and should be removed. Please revert. The picture is of a sporting event crowd, not a Wikipedia crowd. It is also not an illustration of crowdsourcing. IvoryMeerkat ( talk) 18:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Can someone create a section on "truth by consensus"? Wikipedia is "truth by consensus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.142.145 ( talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Boy if this article isn't self-promoting I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophily ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Considering how much images help summarize sections and engage our more visual audience, I think a decent illustration is better than nothing. Now in the reliability section I have found a large crowd on computers, with possibly some literal Wikipedians- an even better illustration than was ever really mandatory I think. - Tesseract2 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
That is the title of a really interesting article by Alex Mueller, published in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Teaching 17.2 (2010): 11-25. Besides discussing some aspects of the use of Wikipedia in the classroom (though he discusses only students' use--as if professors don't use it to prepare lectures!), Mueller argues that the basics of the Wikipedia project are not so different from medieval encyclopedia building, in which often consecutive versions of encyclopedias were improved, edited, changed, etc. Like Wikipedia (and he cites this edit), "the medieval encyclopedia was a product of collaboration, whose authority rested in the hands of the most recent community of users" (14). He compares the Wiki model to a palimpsest, for instance, and his thesis is worth citing: "I want to argue that a conception of Wikipedia as a postmodern manifestation of the premodern encyclopedia will help scholars and teachers to maximize the usefulness of this provocative resource" (11).
Anyway, to the point: I can't rightly find where to add this to the present article, which has no section that I can see that discusses the philosophical and epistemological qualities and characteristics of our project. Any ideas? Thanks, Dr Aaij ( talk) 20:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This article currently identifies the following as "sister projects" of Wikipedia:
It also refers to "other projects" run by Wikimedia, and names only one:
Why is this "other project" not considered a "sister project"? Is Wikisource a "sister project" or an "other project" or something else? Should it also be mentioned in that paragraph? Is there a complete list of "sister projects" and "other projects" run by Wikimedia? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
What about many school teachers hating this site for being notoriously inaccurate?-- ILuvTomservo3Alt ( talk) 01:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
wikipedia has deleted my friends article which explains how wikipedia is against freedom of the press which is a natural human right as stated in the constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomofspeech20 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an article by Thom Hartman alleging that the Koch brothers have hired a PR firm to rework many Wikipedia entries to not only be more favorable to their client but to also remove favorable information about any liberal group. http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/are-koch-brothers-rewriting-wikipedia 75.71.40.251 ( talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a statistics geek, but has the total number of articles, like displayed on the front page (wikipedia.org not just en.wikipedia.org) ever gone down? Has deletion ever outweighed creation? In any of the languages? Because I swear there should be more than three and a half million English articles. It seems like there'd be more in some other languages, too, because they're all a mess and less stuff gets deleted. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
A lot of big pages have good templates located at the bottom, all the way down, below the external links, where no one sees them. Also, tthey are always collapsed by default.
Here's a page: List of tallest buildings in Miami, that has some good templates at the bottom, but no one goes down that far, past all those [shotty] references.
I know that on some of "my" articles I have placed those templates higher, but it doesn't look right.
I got it, they should have their own section, and not look like they're in the bloody external links section, perhaps a "templates" section. I'll try it out Daniel Christensen ( talk) 06:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I moved the templates to the see also section, and they are much better there. That is where they all should be moved and should be put from now on. See List of tallest buildings in Miami#See also. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 06:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I see it was a bad idea using an article I've contributed a lot to as an example, as it, instead of getting a response here, attracted someone to not only revert the template move, but to change formatting and dates which were correct, probably just trying to revert my last few edits, not seeing I am the one who corrected and turned that once out of date article around. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 07:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
For example, a correct date changed back to a wrong date and a language removed. In short, random reversions of my recent edits out of the presumption of falsehood. Who cares that a month ago the whole article was worded for 2008 when it was finished and never updated. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 07:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be a "reference work" and not an encyclopedia. We really are a gazetteer and a traditional encyclopedia and an almanac combined. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 19:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wikipedia's rules require this article to be deleted? Everyone who wrote it is a contributor to Wikipedia. 66.81.223.210 ( talk) 02:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please replace "Graph of the article count for the English Wikipedia, from January 10, 2001, to September 9, 2007 (the date of the two-millionth article)." with one that goes up to the present. 71.109.163.149 ( talk) 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Snagging is a form of fishing the diffence is that you do not use bait or lures istand you use empty hookes and a lead sinker you cast out into the water and ral your line in jerking as you real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.6.224 ( talk) 18:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The archives list at the top list 18 archives but the archives on the left only go to archive 13. Could someone with more knowledge on how to fix this, please fix it. 86.162.146.176 ( talk) 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
So to say all other Encyclopedia articles and scientific texts, in publications, magazines and so on, except for Wikipedia, is marked by individual contributors adding their signature, both in the narrow sense of signalling the author and in the broader pertaining to the metaphysic dimension of poetics. The unnavoidable biased elements of any autorship are sort of tamed by the signature, the person, and broader context of the publishing. With Wikipedia this is not the case. The signature-elements of any wikipedia-article are myriadic, complex and pretty impossible to trace. Because of this lack, I think, Wikipedia would benefit from enhancing modest and open forms of making statements. For instant, the Mohammad article was earlier less modest and open in its opening statement: Mohammad is the founder of the religion of Islam. Now, it seems, an editing war has ended. The more modest and open phrase: Mohammad is regarded the founder of the religion of Islam. has become the preferred statement. I believe such language need to be stimulated, because of the absence of signatories. A model author is appearing in the imaginary field. I don't think it is stupid to be aware of this imaginary speaker/writer when writing. In matter of fact, I think it is important to try too "see" if the character of the model author (the imagined author a reader relates to) is male/female, oriental/occidental, old/young and so on. I believe most articles in English is read having predominantly male white personas. Not because of the real or empirical bias of the myriad of editors, but as result of analyzing the use of language codes hinting to characteristics of authorship. -- Xact ( talk) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but please do allow me to use my First amendment rights here: I have a really hard time not chuckling at the reliability section here. It states:
If we can name only three people here (one of them a comedian) then we have already lost the reliability debate. This just reads like a joke. Just three people? And one of them is a comedian? Did she write this joke?
Another issue is that it is unclear if we can even believe what Wikipedia says about itself elsewhere. The page for Bradley E. Schaefer says:
Is that even true? At the moment, it is unreferenced folklore added by an unknown IP. I have no idea if it is true. But overall, I think while we are all busy giving barnstars to each other many people in universities are laughing. That should change - and stopping the flow of junk IP articles and imposing more quality measures on article edits, avoiding spam, and attracting more experts to Wikipedia will be essential.
There are many articles in Wikipedia. What is needed is improving content reliability by attracting and maintaining experts. (Yes, I do know about the mistakes made at Citizendum, but that is a different story.) The first decade of Wikipedia was just a start. In the second decade, Wikipedia needs to get serious and focus on reliability. And that will require a change of attitude. But that must start if the jokes are to end. When the jokes end, we know reliability is within reach.
I am sorry, but I think the reliability section here is just not credible. History2007 ( talk) 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, there is spam. reference 232 brought me to a completely unrelated site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.60.148 ( talk) 22:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed the following from the section on editing:
Here, as in other human endeavours, it is evident that the active attention of many, when concentrated on one point, produces excellence.
— Goethe, The Experiment as Mediator between Subject and Object, 1772
"Here" was of course not referring to Wikipedia. Such an inclusion seems highly biased towards the idea that the whole Wikipedia project produces excellence. If this quotation has inspired or guided the founders or developers of Wikipedia (and why wouldn't it?) then that should be cited and included as part of the article. If not, it shouldn't be there. Opera hat ( talk) 22:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"This means that an article may contain contain errors, misguided contributions, advocacy, or even patent nonsense."
I suppose this sentence is proof that this sentence is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoater P ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be worth having at least a small section on Wikipedia's logo and branding. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
--Sorry I'm so new to this. I think it would be better to qualify the logo's caption using the word "several" or "various." I'm not sure it's accurate to say the logo includes glyphs from "many" different forms of writing. Wishelephant ( talk) 03:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Wishelephant
Who draws the logos and everything for this stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubblybubblyboy ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
122.168.157.244 (
talk)
13:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/magazine/11wwln-medium-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Let’s go back. As lexicography geeks know well, Oxford’s magnum opus appeared in 10 volumes in 1928, after some 70 years of work by generations of editors and about 2,000 volunteers. (The volunteers displayed much the same gratis fanaticism of today’s Wikipedians.) A supplement with new words appeared in 1933, with additional supplements showing up at regular intervals between 1972 and 1986; in 1989 the whole dictionary was published anew in 20 volumes that collated the ’33 edition and its supplements. Since virtually the day that that last biggie was published, Oxford University Press has been overhauling and revising entries in the dictionary and adding many more. (Oh, “mullet,” “carbo-load,” “six-pack,” “hazmat,” “pole dancing,” “doh!” — what would we do without you?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.238.172 ( talk) 16:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why Wikipedia has an article about itself. Would an encyclopedia have an article about itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.139.211 ( talk) 22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please observe the template heading this article - it clarifies that we should have an article about Wikipedia.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
20:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The entire sections of Sexual Content and Plagiarism could be moved into Criticisms of Wikipedia, what do you think? Cbrittain10 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC).
this talk page is pretty active, may I set up automatic archiving of this page?
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(7d) | archive = User talk:Example/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s }}
Cbrittain10 ( talk) 01:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I propose the removal of the pronunciation sound clip in the first sentence of the article, Wikipedia. You can barely hear "Wikipedia" being said. Just listen to it yourself here. Do you Support or Oppose? -- QUICK EDITOR 22:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The lead section says "Its 19 million articles (over 3.7 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, but has only about 90,000 active contributors."
Apart from the grammatical problems with this sentence, does anyone else think that "but has only..." is unnecessarily negative? Isn't 90,000 quite a lot? Can't we reasonably say "Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, and it has about 90,000 active contributors." 86.160.84.219 ( talk) 03:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Wikipedia having an article about itself a COI? Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be something of a bias in this article. Not enormously surprisingly, criticisms of Wikipedia seem to be down-played, and nothing negative is said without the flip-side stated ASAP. Yes, fair to a degree, but it is as though any criticism absolutely must be negated. The article reads to me as a retort to anyone who has something bad to say about Wikipedia and, let's face it, a little like propaganda. Gingermint ( talk) 01:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I am a huge Wikipedia fan. Gingermint ( talk) 01:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Three examples came up by quickly Googling the subject (regarding bias on Wikipedia in general):
I am certain that more WP:RS can be found that make similar accusations, doesn't that merit a small "accusations of bias" section? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
{{main}}
linking to the daughter article.
Hearfourmewesique (
talk)
06:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The pie chart is from 2008, which by internet standards is completely archaic, not to mention the millions of article that have been written in this time. Can somebody make a more relevant pie chart or find one that is more up to date.
Kobbra ( talk) 09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This is probably the wrong place to put this, but how do you add categories to an article? I can't figure it out. SailorSonic
Worit tot wow ws File:56648968.jpgӄ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.115.73.221 ( talk) 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting the addition of some text at the top in case someone enters the wrong title. It would say:
Something like that. It can be modified in any way.
Multi Trixes! ( Talk - Me on Wikia) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
There are several cross-namespace links in the body of this article - one to Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia in the lead, and some to WP:V and WP:NPOV later on (using {{ srlink}}). These should probably be removed, and replaced with citations using external links. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Rather than being bold & immediately changing this paragraph, I'm setting out here what I as needing to be changed.
"Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of articles and of contributors, appeared to have flattened off around early 2007."
"In 2006, about 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia; by 2010 that average was roughly 1,000.[39] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center speculated that this is due to the increasing exclusiveness of the project.[40] New or occasional editors have significantly higher rates of their edits reverted (removed) than an elite group of regular editors, colloquially known as the "cabal." This could make it more difficult for the project to recruit and retain new contributors over the long term, resulting in stagnation in article creation. Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because the low-hanging fruit already exist.[41][42]
I hope this is useful comment. Wanderer57 ( talk) 13:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This article probably should be FA quality, but we're getting moderately low scores by the readers.
I read some of the subarticles, like criticism of Wikipedia, and they read a lot better.
I think the reason is because the main article is too summarised, the Wikipedia is um... a big thing... and so trying to get it down to 50k of readable text is too big an ask. The size tool gives:
Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8883 words) "readable prose size"
My feel is that it should be at least 50-100% bigger than that.
Anyway that's my theory, does anyone else have any other idea of why the article isn't considered better? How can it be improved? Teapeat ( talk) 21:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the Italian version of Wikipedia? Is is offline, there is some kind of protest because of the Italian government? Adrian ( talk) 09:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The article states that "Two larger clusters in the Netherlands and Korea now handle much of Wikipedia's traffic load". That seems surprising given Korea's extremely limited international bandwidth, and the server layout diagrams show two large clusters, in Florida and Amsterdam. Can anyone clarify whether there is a cluster in Korea and whether it is given appropriate prominence by the current wording? Maxchristian ( talk) 09:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Theres an article on wikipedia... on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.211.87 ( talk) 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion it would be appropriate to mention PediaPress in the "Accessing Wikipedia's content" section since PediaPress is an official partner of Wikimedia Foundation. Veikk0.ma ( talk) 06:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
A bit of an unnecessary and odd suggestion, but maybe someone could retake the screenshots with an open-source OS such as Ubuntu. It just thought that it would be a bit more fitting for Wikipedia than OSX. I could probably do it if I was allowed. 184.203.251.231 ( talk) 14:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
After reading this section, I understand that I am allowed to copy Wikipedia content and use it exactly as I want. Right? But do I have to note that I took it from Wikipedia?
An interesting case: This radio host reads from Wikipedia (not exactly, but enough to be plagiarism), without mentioning Wikipedia. It is obviously plagiarism, but is it legal? Is it in accordance with the Wikipedia license?
88.234.3.161 ( talk) 18:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it better to say nothing ,than to lie about something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.171.193 ( talk) 10:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is rank 5 in the world on the Alexa website as of 17/11/11 but it is stated as only rank six on this page. should be changed i think! 85.225.252.139 ( talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Half of the chapter on "Quality of writing" reflects the view of one single person. This is lack of balance. -- Ettrig ( talk) 20:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Would it be considered bias if this article got nominated for "good" or "featured" status? 71.146.20.62 ( talk) 07:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This proposed addition to the article on WP lays out the actual administrative features of WP with links to the appropriate articles governing its jurisdiction. Some outline of this structure is a glaring omission in the present WP article. That information can be helpful to WP contributors in understanding how WP is run. I hope those with greater familiarity with this topic will suggest improvements and correct inaccuracies, and that this section ultimately can be added to this article. I originally wrote this section for Citizendium, and will correct any inaccuracies turned up here in that presentation. The proposal is below. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is not about how wisely authority is wielded, nor about how responsibly duties are exercised, but about the authority and duties of various agencies as documented by WP itself, however these precepts are used in practice. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Governance of Wikipedia
This section describes the formalities of Wikipedia organization, as described in various documents on Wikipedia.
The contributors or editors of Wikipedia participate subject to a number of policies and guidelines governing behavior and content. [1] These rules are supervised by various authorities: Jimmy Wales, nominally in a position of ultimate authority, [2] although he has deferred in most instances to the leadership of Wikipedia, [3] [4] [5] the ~34 [6] present Bureaucrats or Crats, [7] the ~728 [8] active Administrators or Admins, [9] and another group called the Arbitration Committee or ArbCom, [10] with 15-18 members or Arbs, depending upon the rules adopted each year. There were 15 active Arbitrators in 2011. [11] The Wikimedia Foundation [12] or its designated agents also have authority to impose bans against IP addresses [13] for pages, topics, or the entire site. [14]
The Bureaucrats or Crats are a category introduced in 2004, and have only a few limited activities. Among these, they may remove Administrators and Bureaucrats if so instructed by the Arbitration Committee, and appoint Administrators and Bureaucrats following a selection procedure. Selection follows a discussion process, Bureaucrats decide what criteria constitute a "consensus" upon appointment, at the end of which a Bureaucrat reviews the situation to see whether there is a "consensus". Consensus must exceed 85%, but final judgment is one of Bureaucrat discretion. [15] As a result, Bureaucrats have almost complete control over appointment of new Bureaucrats. The number of newly appointed Bureaucrats has steadily declined over the years, with only two successful candidacies in 2011. Bureaucrats serve indefinitely.
The activities of Administrators or Admins are described in a how-to guide instructing Administrators on the use of their powers, which include actions to block users' IP addresses. There is a distinction between a ban and a block. A ban requires "consensus", and is a formal warning without removal of the ability to edit, while a block can be imposed by a single Administrator and prevents editing to some degree, large or small. [16]
The nomination and selection of Administrators is supervised by existing Bureaucrats, who decide whether, in their opinion, a candidate has garnered sufficient support in discussion of their candidacy, a process like that for appointing Bureaucrats. A "consensus" exceeding 70% is required, but the judgement of Bureaucrats is the deciding factor. A list of unsuccessful requests shows the number of refusals peaked at 543 in 2006 with 353 acceptances, and has steadily declined since as the number of applicants has dropped off, with only 155 refusals and 75 acceptances in 2010, and 75 refusals and 46 acceptances as of end of October 2011.
Administrators serve indefinitely, but can be disbarred by Bureaucrats if the Arbitration Committee formally requests it. [17] "Throughout the history of the project, there has been a convention that adminship may be removed only in cases of clear abuse." [18] A possible exception to the "clear abuse" criterion is the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity, which appropriates to the Arbitration Committee the power to limit an Administrator's activities whenever the Arbitration Committee deems that Administrator "consistently make[s] questionable enforcement administrative actions." and to decommission the Administrator if they override another Administrator's actions without the Arbitration Committee's written authorization or "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". [19]
As of 2009 there had been 47 removals during the history of WP, and following 2009 no public record has been maintained of these actions. [20] Of the approximately 1,526 Administrators empowered, 207 (or 13.5%) have declared themselves open to recall under circumstances devised by themselves. [21] [22] There is a provision for possible removal of inactive Administrators. [23]
Although attempts have been made to implement a community-based removal of Administrators, [24] none ever has been agreed upon.
Members of the Arbitration Committee (referred to as ArbCom) or Arbs act in concert or in sub-groups to impose binding solutions to conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, mainly by imposing, or defining violations under which they will impose, bans and blocks upon users' IP addresses. Though disputes commonly arise over content, the Arbitration Committee explicitly excludes all content issues from their deliberations and focuses upon disciplinary actions. [25] Aside from enforcing an end to disputes, the Arbitration Committee can authorize users to irreversibly delete certain material, for example, material considered defamatory, [26] and can request Bureaucrats to exercise de-Adminship under the circumstances described in the above section: Administrators. Arbitrators are elected annually in one-year or overlapping two-year terms, and also can be appointed directly by Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. The election rules are debated each year.
Wikipedia is one of a dozen projects of Wikimedia, owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Among the functionaries of WikiMedia are the Stewards [27] of the Wikimedia wikis who have complete access to the wiki interface on all Wikimedia wikis, including the ability to change any and all user rights and groups; and the SysOps of the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, [28] who manage and maintain the Wikimedia Foundation servers. The tools used by the Stewards in exercising control over the wikis of Wikimedia are described in a handbook. [29] Some indication of the control given to Stewards and System Administrators can be found on the WikiMedia web pages. [28]
The overall control is by the ten-member Wikimedia Board of Trustees one of whom is Jimmy Wales. The present membership is found here.
References and notes
While any arbitration decision may be nominally appealed to Jimbo Wales, it is exceedingly unusual for him to intervene.
Final policy decisions are up to me, as always. But the license provides a strong counter-balance to my power...I must listen carefully to all elements of the community, and make decisions that are satisfactory to the best interests of the encyclopedia as a whole.
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accesssdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
Brews ohare ( talk) 18:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
-- GRuban ( talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
←outdent DVdm: Thanks for that link to Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself. I guess time will tell whether there is consensus that WP has been used properly in this proposed section as a source about itself. I do think that it has been used as it should be. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Lest we lose sight of the point here in a debate over whether some guideline or policy applies or not, or whether some adjective is appropriate, can it be agreed that some attempt at laying out the organizational structure should be a part of this article on Wikipedia? Brews ohare ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree 0% with the second, as it flatly wipes the core policy wp:verifiability, sub WP:CIRCULAR off the table, saying:
←outdent Per Cusop Dingle, I've corrected a link for RfB, deleted the word "well" from "well described", and amended the discussion of the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid any impression of hierarchy there. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
For those who may wish to find secondary sources for the proposed material here, below is a list of sources such as I could locate. Unfortunately, none of them really is satisfactory: some are inaccurate and most are oriented toward being a "user manual" for WP, and do not attempt to lay out its organization. Brews ohare ( talk) 05:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) A detailed discussion of how WP works, including the arbitration processes. Some subsidiary web links are found
here.{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) A basic "how-to" manual for readers and first-time contributors.A draft article along these lines is in this draft. All are invited to look it over and make changes with accompanying discussion on its Talk page. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The revised version of this article is now posted at Wikipedia:Formal organization. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I have an idea, but I'm not sure if it's ever been discussed before. To make Wikipedia a better place, and more useful (as in teachers will stop banning Wikipedia from research use), is it possible to have every edit go through a verification process where moderators decide if an edit is true, or if it is false and/or vandalism? This verification will occur before every post is viewable to the public. This will give the moderators more work, but hey, we could just request more moderators! And its not like this website is the easiest to moderate in the first place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.230.195 ( talk) 02:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That is kind of insane. There is just too much information added daily for the people to verify. The number of moderators needed would be obtuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.65.225 ( talk) 05:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
How do you make a template like the see also one where you can add pipes within the template brackets and then add article titles. I need to make a template like this. Where I can write something like { {exampletemplate|title of an article} } Daniel Christensen ( talk) 02:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is for issues pertaining to the Wikipedia article itself.-- 69.248.1.200 ( talk) 12:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph says "Wikipedia's 13 million articles (3 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers," and "volunteers" links to the [[Volunteer|general volunteer page]. I think it should link to the [Virtual_volunteering|virtual volunteering] page instead, since these are specifically online volunteers, rather than traditional onsite volunteers, especially since Wikipedia is one of the largest examples of virtual volunteering. Comment by: User:Jcravens42
Wikipedia article does not contain any information about the new beta feature nor any content about wikipedia's future. Wikipedia staff should do something about this.
According to Wikitech [1] [2] and Ganglia, there are no longer Wikipedia servers in Korea, though even Meta-Wiki hasn't been updated and there seems to be no up-to-date server layout diagram.
Any thoughts on adding a section on Criticism of Wikipedia? I know there is already an article dedicated to it, but having a section that sums it up briefly on here would be helpful. In it we can have a link (such as 'main article: Criticism of Wikipedia). I would draft it, but I'm not autoconfirmed yet, and this article is semi-protected. If nobody minded waiting a few days I could probably do it then or send it to somebody who is confirmed.-- Alang814 ( talk) 02:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have recently tried to contribute to some articles on Wikipedia only to be rudely deleted and told off by other users. I simply can't understand how Wikipedia can claim to be free to contributors when in the end if someone doesn't agree with you they simply delete your message and start calling your comments vandalism. I really find this amazing. These 'guardians' of wikipedia are abusing wikipedia's most cherished principle of freedom of speech and expression. My comments were not rude but researched facts which did not agree with hard core long-term users. Some users even threatened to stop me from posting again. How can they possibly have such power and be the judges of comments. I would like to open a discussion about this. I think these wiki bullies are acting totally inappropriately. I just found this article which supports what I'm saying:- http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10309840-71.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 ( talk • contribs)
(facepalms) We don't need this page. This wiki doesn't have enough room for pages ABOUT ITSELF. Seriously, we don't need pages for everything in the universe. -pgj1997 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.126.240 ( talk) 04:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please change
Except for a few particularly vandalism-prone pages, every article may be edited anonymously or with a user account
to
Except for a few particularly vandalism-prone pages and pages that are part of the Pending changes trial, every article may be edited anonymously or with a user account
because
As currently written, the article is incorrectly. Pages that are part of the Pending changes trial cannot be edited anonymously.
71.109.148.127 ( talk) 21:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done Not quite right; certain flagged pages in the PCT can still be edited by anonymous editors, but their edits do not become visible until accepted. Since this may change when the trial ends, I don't see much point changing it for now.
Rodhull
andemu
21:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change Edits to specified articles would be "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication." to A trial is now in progress. During the trial, edits to specified articles are "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication." because current version of article incorrectly uses future tense to describe something that already began. 71.109.148.127 ( talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering if anyone here thought that this video might be useful? File:Editing_Hoxne_Hoard_at_the_British_Museum.ogv. It is the timelapse of part of the editing process at the Hoxne Challenge event held at the British Museum last week. I was the instigator of that event and so I'm obviously personally fond of the video :-) However, I also think that it might be the best/only video of Wikipedia being actually edited by actual people. Because the premise of the day was to get experts from the museum and wikipeida into the room together I think this is a unique video and therefore potentially valuable for this article. What do you think? Currently the video is in-use at the British Museum-Wikipedia collaboration page here Wikipedia:GLAM/BM Witty Lama 14:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Consider adding: "A number of third party applications are using information on Wikipedia as their main source of information. Wikify, for example, is adding Wikipedia links to all words in a text which have corresponding article on Wikipedia. A project using Wikipedia's multi-language feature to translate special terms between different languages exists [Citatioin needed]." Spidgorny ( talk) 09:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
When I accessed the Alexa page, Wikipedia came up as 7th in the world, and 6th in US. Should we still keep the ranking, or should we change it to 7th? Pooh4913 ( talk) 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In an era when increasing numbers of companies are installing tracking software on users' computers, it was interesting to see where Wikipedia came out in this study by The Wall Street Journal. [3] MarmadukePercy ( talk) 16:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
In the list of most viewed articles for 2009, favicon is listed number four. The source is the Telegraph, which has a listing for "favicon.ico" at number four. Unless there was some greta media interest in facvicons during 2009, isn't this probably a slightly wobbly source, where the WP favicon has been interpreted as being an article? And, for that matter isn't "wiki" (placed at number one) probably the main page, not the article wiki?-- FormerIP ( talk) 09:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's systematic and proven liberal bias is well-known and well discussed - but yet this controversy is not mentioned at all in Wikipedia's article. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00Eregos00 ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not a forum for discussion about Australian politics, :( "supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation[citation needed]" It says this in the article. This is Wikipedia do we REALLY need to cite where the funding from this website comes from? They say it all the time on the site and if you can't trust Wikipedia about their funding then can you trust them about their database or whatever, no. So please who ever put "supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation[citation needed]" take down citation needed, it just looks dumb. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to get to the point, fast, and I don't want to spend time articulating it in a different manner. Thank you
Cozzycovers (
talk)
07:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm just kidding, I just like splitting hairs. I mean don't we all on the discussion page? of course I should not even be saying this on this page b/c it has nothing to do with improving the article anymore. 66.231.146.77 ( talk) 08:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that, although Wikipedia RAVES on and on and on about how it is UNCENSORED and that it is all about cold hard facts (with a credited source of course) - and I am not trying to be mean, this is usually true - even sensative material is uncensored, no matter how much it might affend someone, it something is relavent to the article and properly sourced, it stays.
But i JUST CANT help but notice that the wikipedia page itself is CENSORED - that is - only "special" people can edit the page. Not some nobody like me. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia!" WRONG. "Uncensored" WRONG - yeah I know, it says in a couple places that "anyone can edit ALMOST every page" but not everywhere, and certainly not the people who I See on the talk pages - the advanced users, you know the ones who CONSTANTLY (and ignorantly) just post wikipedia rules instead of answering someone. BE BOLD they say - even on this page a heavy contributer says "Anyone can edit Wikpiedia. You can!"
Although in my experience here both of those things are true Much, MUCH more than not - it should not be part of Wikipedia's constant boastings about itself, and policies unless its true 100% of the time. Yeah Yeah I know, the Vandalism - but I never did any Vandalism, so why am I unable to edit a page like this? AND how do I know that this page or others were vandalized? Maybe wikipedia might abuse that notion on pages they don't want edited. Now, I am only half-kidding about this article, Im sure it was vandalized like there is NO tomorrow, but for many pages, I am unable to edit. Wikipedia keeps track of EVERYONE, user or not - even if you dont post any signiture, it eventually pulls your IP address. Why didn't they just ban people who vandalized - a month, then a year, then forever (banned from editing that is).
If wikipedia does not allow EVERY LAST article to be edited by ANYONE, than it is censored, because there is no way for a person like me to know WHY was an article shut down - I can see the old versions of the article? so what - anyone can type anything, real or fake. And I have no way of knowing who DOES get to contribute - people who donate? people who have been on wiki forever and edited 1000's of times and are obviously in love with wikipedia and will stay in its favor and bias? workers of wikipedia?
There are other approaches to vandalism, and until one is put into action, i belive wikipedia is partially censored - which is simply censorship, and I will find some credable source that defines censorship in a manner similar to this - and when I do I will request it be put on the wikiepdia article - and if it is not, then I will piss and moan, and cry like a little girlie baby wuss, and ill lock myself in my room and I won't come out till I'm 30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyo14 ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is only for discussions concerning Wikipedia's article on itself. Oh yeah, and where'd you get the idea that Wikipedia is censored? Nobody else says it's censored. The pages being locked are locked for a very good reason: We can't let vandals put false information on them.-- 69.248.1.200 ( talk) 12:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe it's necessary to have that Weird Al's image as its message "you suck!" is clearly directed to Atlantic Records and in the context it seems directed towards Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.207.174 ( talk) 08:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been using wikipedia as a source of information for my homeworks, and just for reading some articles. In school, my classmates keep telling me that wikipedia is not a reliable source and I asked why. Well, they just simply replied that they keep editing some pages and put wrong data into it. In my opinion, I think that wikipedia must not let these "editors" edit any more page, but this is simply a tedious task therefore I suggest that wikipedia remove the anonimity of the "editors" or any editor in general.
This is another topic that I want to discuss.
There are pages in which we can find the summary of books, novels, short stories, etc. I personally think that there is nothing wrong with it but the users just abuse it. They do not read anymore the real books assigned to them by the teacher and they would not even read the summary from wikipedia just copy and paste then print. Honestly, there are times that I passed my homework by just copying, pasting and printing(of course i wrote the source) without reading any part of it at all.
The idea of wikipedia is a total marvel it's just that people misunderstand its purpose and abuse it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekfreak gf ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Has Wikipedia really been around since 2001? I have some vague recollections of some kind of online encyclopedia around the early 2000s, but I don't think it was until the end of 2003, maybe 2004 that links to Wikipedia articles showed up in my Yahoo! searches. What have other people's experiences been? I'm just curious. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 02:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
As far as I can tell, the suffix of Wikipedia is Latin first declension, so it's plural is Wikipediae, not Wikipedias.
205.193.96.10 ( talk) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, in the section titled "Coverage of Topics", add a colon into the first item in the bulleted list. Thank you. Sean Michael (Seaners 2010) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaners 2010 ( talk • contribs)
Just wanted to let you know that there is an overlap of image and text in the Cultural Significance section of the Wikipedia article. Nothing major, but the edit would make the page look a bit more neat. Thanks. DethariusXXX ( talk) 06:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)DethariusXXX
Could you please fix your edit-conflict function. I am sick of giving time and thought to my edits and contributions only to have my contributions deleted by an "edit-conflict" message as soon as I submit them. No wonder people are leaving Wikipedia in droves. I might care enough about an issue to edit it once, but after my time and thought gets deleted by an "edit conflict" I just close and move on (I have a mortgage to pay). PLEASE FIX THIS!!! Do you want quality submissions or not? 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 11:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've redirect it from this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics. Makes more sense, I believe (and this article does not even have an economy section, not that Wikipedia has an economy, I think, anyway...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, could someone add the info that the pedia in Wikipedia is greek: ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία Like the Wiki is from hawaian,...
thx
Marasia (
talk)
08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
should state that this article is ON wikipedia, so that if someone is looking up Wikipedia and gets to this page, they will realize they are using Wikipedia (or a mirror) to view it! 84.153.222.232 ( talk) 12:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Please may someone fix it because the Map image says CY on Crete (Greece)...instead of the island of Cyprus to the east (south of Turkey). Says cannot discuss on the Image's discussion page and should discuss here/request Graphics team to change it Eugene-elgato ( talk) 19:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't this page fully proteced (admin edits only)? It has been vandalised so many times I can't believe normal users can still edit it. たか はり い 05:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression anyone could edit Wikipedia, but the more I use it and dive deeper the more I find, this is not the case at all; anyone can not edit Wikipedia (and have it stick). The article under Meritocracy indicates Wikimedia could be considered to operate under such a principle, which would mean that contributions and contributors with lower levels of merit or without merit are quickly quashed. Therefore, no, everybody can not edit Wikipedia. Dumb monkeys are excluded.
A person in fact has to be a highly skilled Wiki mentality editor to edit Wikipedia; there is a steep learning curve and a whole set of editing rules you have to learn. Most people do not write in the highly self critical, highly rule based neutral style for a newspaper, let alone an encyclopedia.
Wikimedia claims 4,000 editors, yet there are roughly 6 billion people in the world. That is less than .00006% of the world's population. 99.99994% of the rest of the world, yes, could try... but I wonder how many of them are anywhere near qualified by Wiki baseline standards (whatever they are) within such an Editocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 ( talk) 12:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia has 1,766 administrators as of November 29, 2010. The admins are the de facto authors of Wikipedia. In the end, anything this tiny group of people disagrees with will be deleted or altered to conform to their Weltanschauung. Wasp14 ( talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm a college student. If we even cite Wikipedia in research papers, we get flunked. There's a reason for it e.g. many times I have googled entire paragraphs as the search term--it returned more than just Wikipedia (sometimes, something even more credible--yes I am saying people on here plagiarize). Wikipedia's only use for academic work I have found is that it serves as a springboard to credible sources of information. 216.228.249.43 ( talk) 18:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
How does the counter work? {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} - does it include the number of disambiguation pages? Is it possible to know the number of disambiguation pages? Thanks — Ark25 ( talk) 07:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Preston Papie Corporal (born March 9, 1987) is a Liberian player who plays in the Canadian Soccer League for Hamilton Croatia.
Club career
Born in Liberia,Lower Buchanan, Grand Bassa County, Preston a striker, started his professional football career at Liberian club Watanga FC, where he became a key player at the club and won the Liberia Football Association Most Value Player Award in 2003. One year later he made a stint with Liberia premiership club Invincible Eleven (IE). Later that year, he was called up on the Under 20, Liberia National team and made his debut against the Leone Star of Sierra Leone in an International friendly in 2004 and made his latest appearance for the Liberia National Senior team in the 2010 World Cup qualifier against Algeria in 2008.In November 2005 he made his way to the continent of Asia.
After an unsuccesful trial with DPMM of Brunei, he landed in Malaysia and made it with Angkantan Tentera Malaysia (ATM) in the Malaysia M-League.
In his first year, Preston bagged a total of 36 goals in all competitions and help ATM to win two Championships that year. In his second season with ATM, Preston made a short appearance in India with Mohammedan Sporting Fc. A club that was struggling relegation battle in the India top flight league.Searching for a striker who could save Mohammed Sporting Fc season by scoring goals on a regular basis, the scout recommended Preston after hearing about and watching the impressive striker in action , Mohammedan quickly signed him for a 4 months loan.
After ending his 4 Months Contract with Mohammedan Sporting Fc in India, the prolific striker return to Malaysia with his club ATM. After 2 more seaons with ATM he fianlly moved to Jamaica and played for Village United.
Andwesseh (
talk)
17:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The top of the page is vandalised, you should fully lock it.
Fernpwns8 ( talk) 16:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Researching to see if wikipedia was declining, I found this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/25/wikipedia-editors-decline and read this:
which was in response to every previous comment which had only negative to say about the project and it made me wonder if wikipedia is the largest ad free site in the world, which I'll bet it is. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 08:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not put a graph of the amount needed in donations along the years? I remember that in the past (some years ago) Wikipedia needed much less in donations than it needs this year (16 million dollars). It would be interesting to put a graph all the values it needed in all these years since its creation. Thanks! (and sorry my bad grammar, but you got the point!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.49.112 ( talk) 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
My original question was what exactly it means when the article describes the GFDL as "not suitable for online reference works" which I changed to say it "was not considered suitable" and added a clarification tag to. On further inspection, this section also needs to use secondary sources rather than pages on Wikimedia's own projects. It's my understanding that there are issues with both using primary sources too much and referencing wiki pages that any person can change. Andreona ( talk) 10:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out what the most viewed articles in 2010 were? I don't think anyone cares about 2009 anymore. – Homestar-winner 03:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel that there should be some sort of a warning on this page regarding possible inaccuracies in this specific article; sort of a conflict of interest header template? -- Matthew Bauer ( talk) 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Shame I can't put it right :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.47.162 ( talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
I feel there should be sections regarding general criticisms of Wikipedia, including the issues of difficulty of posting, the lack of user friendliness for editing, and the various concerns of people regarding whether this is good source, even though it has become the main source people use, and the privacy implications for people whose biography are shown as an article. 67.169.72.25 ( talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised that there was no section on criticisms in this page, when that is a pretty common feature among others. Generally, this page conveys a strong sense of bias, where every complaint or criticism is met by a rebuttal.
Let me tell you why I came to this page. I started with an objection about editing. I went to a page that purported to explain Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. It was impenetrable. There seemed to be no clear structure, just a piled-up accumulation of possibilities. So then I came here and, lo, this page is even worse. Are all these paragraphs of text really about Wikipedia, in something other than the general sense that the whole world is about Wikipedia? With all the overpolicing of individual articles that goes on in the name of quality control, one would expect to see some sort of editorial discipline here, of all places -- with, specifically, a criticisms section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raywood ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no criticism or controversy section on Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be biased even to itself. I have probably am not the only one to make this complaint. 216.105.64.140 ( talk) 05:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that it is time for it to be noted the Wikipedia is basically the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.49.80 ( talk) 21:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The talk page on Wikipedia:about has been protected from editing. Now why would anyone "protect" a talk page? 173.183.66.173 ( talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This NYT article talks about a gender imbalance on Wikipedia:
How about information on (1)Number of edits made (2)Number of registered users (3) Number of administratros, stewards etc. or links to pages where such information is available. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 08:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth is my search-entry Five pillars of Wikipedia redirected here to the overall article on Wikipedia? The aimed for article exists ( five pillars of wikipedia) and I wanted to re-view it. I don't know how to change such frustrating redirections. It feels very manipulating. I hope someone may help, thank you. -- Xact ( talk) 02:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC))
This question is regarding a peculiar discussion at Wikipedia:Norway. In Norwegian we have the word for both 'neutral' (nøytral) and objective (objektiv), still the Objective is preferred for Neutral in the translation. I intuit this as pertaining to a policy, which challenges the original neutrality policy of wikipedia. Also neutrality has a political colour, so to say, in Norway, cause this is traditionally associated with the Swedish political mainstream ideal. This may be a cause for the situation in Norway.. Nevertheless I find the Norwegian translation of this pillar very problematic. Objectivity is quite another ideal from neutral point of view. Objectivity is far more conservative in relation to established order and authority, than what is neutrality. The neutral is a possible ground within a process, wheras objectivity relates to an hypothetical end-product. The Wikipedia will never result in a publishable encyclopedia (an object). It will constantly be in a dynamic process. Wikipedians should not, I think, regard Wikipedia as inferior to an Encyclopedia. It will stay as something else, and it will continune to influence the way we (including the academic community) are thinking in terms of methodology. Theory is a practice in this new paradigm. Wikipedia is far ahead of the encyclopedias in disclosing this binarism (Theory & Practice). Still I'm somehow afraid of the conflict on Wikipedia:Norway. I hope it is not symptomatic. There's obvious efforts to sort of tame Wikipedia in regard of its seminal influence. I think it is an strategic error to present Wikipedia as the free encyclopedia, cause it signals an upper limit in reference to the very much better, but not so cheap encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica. On the other hand Wikipedia is a better wikipedia than any of the other efforts from the encyclopedic publishers to encounter the challenge. I wonder what the opinions are at this English section about the Norwegian case? -- Xact ( talk) 03:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Can those in the know add an overview, either under this sub-section or in a new sub-section, of the software technologies and techniques used on Wikipedia? For example, we've been told that javascript is used by "gadget" developers; the (new?) GeoIP servers are used to customize how pages are delivered (and maybe for load balancing?); CSS and templates are used to format the pages. By putting it here, hopefully it would also be kept up-to-date. (There doesn't seem to be anything like this in the Technical Village Pump, and I don't know where else to look). Metafax1 ( talk) 03:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This would be under a separate heading. Wikipedia does not take a journalistic approach to things. given examples. evolution is presented as a fact, where anything contrary to it is a myth. this abounds in many of the articles referring to a supernatural belief. they seem to give a point of view of the leftest, stating science as proven fact and religion as crazy people. when in fact, scientific FACT keeps changing. up until the last year we all came from Africa 200,000 years ago. it was not questioned, it was a fact. well the fact has changed now to represent we came from Israel region 400,000 years ago. the skew points left, to articles being written, edited, and moderated by those with little to no belief in any type of God; or a belief that they themselves are God. the BC AD, BCE CE debate is another great example. we work on a calender that was based on an approximate year of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefor BC and AD are appropriate when referring to anything before the year 1BC and after the year 1AD. BCE and CE cannot be used, and are not interchangeable in this dating system. by all means, one can use what ever calendar they choose. however we are in the year 2011AD. 2011 years after the estimate of Jesus' birth.
so i believe there should be an entry on the Wikipedia wiki, listing a criticism of a leftist editing base, and an explanation of the reasoning.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia Scoobydoo4ever ( talk) 14:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the allegations of bias, I was going to be rude and point out the American bias in the OP's question, liberal being a generally positive and complimentary word in most of the world outside the USA, but felt that it's better to educate than criticise. The other area for our IP's education is the nature of science. Of course what science knows keeps changing. It's a matter of always seeking better explanations. To believe that all is explained in an unchanging dogma from thousands of years ago takes a faith that many of us cannot find. I suspect our OP is happy to accept the newer findings of medical science. Now, as for calling it leftist... That criticism I cannot comprehend. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
[5] This is a bad illustration and should be removed. Please revert. The picture is of a sporting event crowd, not a Wikipedia crowd. It is also not an illustration of crowdsourcing. IvoryMeerkat ( talk) 18:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Can someone create a section on "truth by consensus"? Wikipedia is "truth by consensus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.142.145 ( talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Boy if this article isn't self-promoting I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophily ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Considering how much images help summarize sections and engage our more visual audience, I think a decent illustration is better than nothing. Now in the reliability section I have found a large crowd on computers, with possibly some literal Wikipedians- an even better illustration than was ever really mandatory I think. - Tesseract2 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
That is the title of a really interesting article by Alex Mueller, published in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Teaching 17.2 (2010): 11-25. Besides discussing some aspects of the use of Wikipedia in the classroom (though he discusses only students' use--as if professors don't use it to prepare lectures!), Mueller argues that the basics of the Wikipedia project are not so different from medieval encyclopedia building, in which often consecutive versions of encyclopedias were improved, edited, changed, etc. Like Wikipedia (and he cites this edit), "the medieval encyclopedia was a product of collaboration, whose authority rested in the hands of the most recent community of users" (14). He compares the Wiki model to a palimpsest, for instance, and his thesis is worth citing: "I want to argue that a conception of Wikipedia as a postmodern manifestation of the premodern encyclopedia will help scholars and teachers to maximize the usefulness of this provocative resource" (11).
Anyway, to the point: I can't rightly find where to add this to the present article, which has no section that I can see that discusses the philosophical and epistemological qualities and characteristics of our project. Any ideas? Thanks, Dr Aaij ( talk) 20:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This article currently identifies the following as "sister projects" of Wikipedia:
It also refers to "other projects" run by Wikimedia, and names only one:
Why is this "other project" not considered a "sister project"? Is Wikisource a "sister project" or an "other project" or something else? Should it also be mentioned in that paragraph? Is there a complete list of "sister projects" and "other projects" run by Wikimedia? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
What about many school teachers hating this site for being notoriously inaccurate?-- ILuvTomservo3Alt ( talk) 01:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
wikipedia has deleted my friends article which explains how wikipedia is against freedom of the press which is a natural human right as stated in the constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomofspeech20 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an article by Thom Hartman alleging that the Koch brothers have hired a PR firm to rework many Wikipedia entries to not only be more favorable to their client but to also remove favorable information about any liberal group. http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/are-koch-brothers-rewriting-wikipedia 75.71.40.251 ( talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a statistics geek, but has the total number of articles, like displayed on the front page (wikipedia.org not just en.wikipedia.org) ever gone down? Has deletion ever outweighed creation? In any of the languages? Because I swear there should be more than three and a half million English articles. It seems like there'd be more in some other languages, too, because they're all a mess and less stuff gets deleted. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
A lot of big pages have good templates located at the bottom, all the way down, below the external links, where no one sees them. Also, tthey are always collapsed by default.
Here's a page: List of tallest buildings in Miami, that has some good templates at the bottom, but no one goes down that far, past all those [shotty] references.
I know that on some of "my" articles I have placed those templates higher, but it doesn't look right.
I got it, they should have their own section, and not look like they're in the bloody external links section, perhaps a "templates" section. I'll try it out Daniel Christensen ( talk) 06:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I moved the templates to the see also section, and they are much better there. That is where they all should be moved and should be put from now on. See List of tallest buildings in Miami#See also. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 06:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I see it was a bad idea using an article I've contributed a lot to as an example, as it, instead of getting a response here, attracted someone to not only revert the template move, but to change formatting and dates which were correct, probably just trying to revert my last few edits, not seeing I am the one who corrected and turned that once out of date article around. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 07:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
For example, a correct date changed back to a wrong date and a language removed. In short, random reversions of my recent edits out of the presumption of falsehood. Who cares that a month ago the whole article was worded for 2008 when it was finished and never updated. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 07:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be a "reference work" and not an encyclopedia. We really are a gazetteer and a traditional encyclopedia and an almanac combined. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 19:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wikipedia's rules require this article to be deleted? Everyone who wrote it is a contributor to Wikipedia. 66.81.223.210 ( talk) 02:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please replace "Graph of the article count for the English Wikipedia, from January 10, 2001, to September 9, 2007 (the date of the two-millionth article)." with one that goes up to the present. 71.109.163.149 ( talk) 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Snagging is a form of fishing the diffence is that you do not use bait or lures istand you use empty hookes and a lead sinker you cast out into the water and ral your line in jerking as you real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.6.224 ( talk) 18:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The archives list at the top list 18 archives but the archives on the left only go to archive 13. Could someone with more knowledge on how to fix this, please fix it. 86.162.146.176 ( talk) 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
So to say all other Encyclopedia articles and scientific texts, in publications, magazines and so on, except for Wikipedia, is marked by individual contributors adding their signature, both in the narrow sense of signalling the author and in the broader pertaining to the metaphysic dimension of poetics. The unnavoidable biased elements of any autorship are sort of tamed by the signature, the person, and broader context of the publishing. With Wikipedia this is not the case. The signature-elements of any wikipedia-article are myriadic, complex and pretty impossible to trace. Because of this lack, I think, Wikipedia would benefit from enhancing modest and open forms of making statements. For instant, the Mohammad article was earlier less modest and open in its opening statement: Mohammad is the founder of the religion of Islam. Now, it seems, an editing war has ended. The more modest and open phrase: Mohammad is regarded the founder of the religion of Islam. has become the preferred statement. I believe such language need to be stimulated, because of the absence of signatories. A model author is appearing in the imaginary field. I don't think it is stupid to be aware of this imaginary speaker/writer when writing. In matter of fact, I think it is important to try too "see" if the character of the model author (the imagined author a reader relates to) is male/female, oriental/occidental, old/young and so on. I believe most articles in English is read having predominantly male white personas. Not because of the real or empirical bias of the myriad of editors, but as result of analyzing the use of language codes hinting to characteristics of authorship. -- Xact ( talk) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but please do allow me to use my First amendment rights here: I have a really hard time not chuckling at the reliability section here. It states:
If we can name only three people here (one of them a comedian) then we have already lost the reliability debate. This just reads like a joke. Just three people? And one of them is a comedian? Did she write this joke?
Another issue is that it is unclear if we can even believe what Wikipedia says about itself elsewhere. The page for Bradley E. Schaefer says:
Is that even true? At the moment, it is unreferenced folklore added by an unknown IP. I have no idea if it is true. But overall, I think while we are all busy giving barnstars to each other many people in universities are laughing. That should change - and stopping the flow of junk IP articles and imposing more quality measures on article edits, avoiding spam, and attracting more experts to Wikipedia will be essential.
There are many articles in Wikipedia. What is needed is improving content reliability by attracting and maintaining experts. (Yes, I do know about the mistakes made at Citizendum, but that is a different story.) The first decade of Wikipedia was just a start. In the second decade, Wikipedia needs to get serious and focus on reliability. And that will require a change of attitude. But that must start if the jokes are to end. When the jokes end, we know reliability is within reach.
I am sorry, but I think the reliability section here is just not credible. History2007 ( talk) 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, there is spam. reference 232 brought me to a completely unrelated site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.60.148 ( talk) 22:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed the following from the section on editing:
Here, as in other human endeavours, it is evident that the active attention of many, when concentrated on one point, produces excellence.
— Goethe, The Experiment as Mediator between Subject and Object, 1772
"Here" was of course not referring to Wikipedia. Such an inclusion seems highly biased towards the idea that the whole Wikipedia project produces excellence. If this quotation has inspired or guided the founders or developers of Wikipedia (and why wouldn't it?) then that should be cited and included as part of the article. If not, it shouldn't be there. Opera hat ( talk) 22:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"This means that an article may contain contain errors, misguided contributions, advocacy, or even patent nonsense."
I suppose this sentence is proof that this sentence is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoater P ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be worth having at least a small section on Wikipedia's logo and branding. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
--Sorry I'm so new to this. I think it would be better to qualify the logo's caption using the word "several" or "various." I'm not sure it's accurate to say the logo includes glyphs from "many" different forms of writing. Wishelephant ( talk) 03:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Wishelephant
Who draws the logos and everything for this stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubblybubblyboy ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
122.168.157.244 (
talk)
13:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/magazine/11wwln-medium-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Let’s go back. As lexicography geeks know well, Oxford’s magnum opus appeared in 10 volumes in 1928, after some 70 years of work by generations of editors and about 2,000 volunteers. (The volunteers displayed much the same gratis fanaticism of today’s Wikipedians.) A supplement with new words appeared in 1933, with additional supplements showing up at regular intervals between 1972 and 1986; in 1989 the whole dictionary was published anew in 20 volumes that collated the ’33 edition and its supplements. Since virtually the day that that last biggie was published, Oxford University Press has been overhauling and revising entries in the dictionary and adding many more. (Oh, “mullet,” “carbo-load,” “six-pack,” “hazmat,” “pole dancing,” “doh!” — what would we do without you?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.238.172 ( talk) 16:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why Wikipedia has an article about itself. Would an encyclopedia have an article about itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.139.211 ( talk) 22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please observe the template heading this article - it clarifies that we should have an article about Wikipedia.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
20:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The entire sections of Sexual Content and Plagiarism could be moved into Criticisms of Wikipedia, what do you think? Cbrittain10 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC).
this talk page is pretty active, may I set up automatic archiving of this page?
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(7d) | archive = User talk:Example/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s }}
Cbrittain10 ( talk) 01:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I propose the removal of the pronunciation sound clip in the first sentence of the article, Wikipedia. You can barely hear "Wikipedia" being said. Just listen to it yourself here. Do you Support or Oppose? -- QUICK EDITOR 22:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The lead section says "Its 19 million articles (over 3.7 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, but has only about 90,000 active contributors."
Apart from the grammatical problems with this sentence, does anyone else think that "but has only..." is unnecessarily negative? Isn't 90,000 quite a lot? Can't we reasonably say "Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, and it has about 90,000 active contributors." 86.160.84.219 ( talk) 03:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Wikipedia having an article about itself a COI? Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be something of a bias in this article. Not enormously surprisingly, criticisms of Wikipedia seem to be down-played, and nothing negative is said without the flip-side stated ASAP. Yes, fair to a degree, but it is as though any criticism absolutely must be negated. The article reads to me as a retort to anyone who has something bad to say about Wikipedia and, let's face it, a little like propaganda. Gingermint ( talk) 01:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I am a huge Wikipedia fan. Gingermint ( talk) 01:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Three examples came up by quickly Googling the subject (regarding bias on Wikipedia in general):
I am certain that more WP:RS can be found that make similar accusations, doesn't that merit a small "accusations of bias" section? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
{{main}}
linking to the daughter article.
Hearfourmewesique (
talk)
06:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The pie chart is from 2008, which by internet standards is completely archaic, not to mention the millions of article that have been written in this time. Can somebody make a more relevant pie chart or find one that is more up to date.
Kobbra ( talk) 09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This is probably the wrong place to put this, but how do you add categories to an article? I can't figure it out. SailorSonic
Worit tot wow ws File:56648968.jpgӄ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.115.73.221 ( talk) 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting the addition of some text at the top in case someone enters the wrong title. It would say:
Something like that. It can be modified in any way.
Multi Trixes! ( Talk - Me on Wikia) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
There are several cross-namespace links in the body of this article - one to Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia in the lead, and some to WP:V and WP:NPOV later on (using {{ srlink}}). These should probably be removed, and replaced with citations using external links. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Rather than being bold & immediately changing this paragraph, I'm setting out here what I as needing to be changed.
"Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of articles and of contributors, appeared to have flattened off around early 2007."
"In 2006, about 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia; by 2010 that average was roughly 1,000.[39] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center speculated that this is due to the increasing exclusiveness of the project.[40] New or occasional editors have significantly higher rates of their edits reverted (removed) than an elite group of regular editors, colloquially known as the "cabal." This could make it more difficult for the project to recruit and retain new contributors over the long term, resulting in stagnation in article creation. Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because the low-hanging fruit already exist.[41][42]
I hope this is useful comment. Wanderer57 ( talk) 13:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This article probably should be FA quality, but we're getting moderately low scores by the readers.
I read some of the subarticles, like criticism of Wikipedia, and they read a lot better.
I think the reason is because the main article is too summarised, the Wikipedia is um... a big thing... and so trying to get it down to 50k of readable text is too big an ask. The size tool gives:
Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8883 words) "readable prose size"
My feel is that it should be at least 50-100% bigger than that.
Anyway that's my theory, does anyone else have any other idea of why the article isn't considered better? How can it be improved? Teapeat ( talk) 21:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the Italian version of Wikipedia? Is is offline, there is some kind of protest because of the Italian government? Adrian ( talk) 09:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The article states that "Two larger clusters in the Netherlands and Korea now handle much of Wikipedia's traffic load". That seems surprising given Korea's extremely limited international bandwidth, and the server layout diagrams show two large clusters, in Florida and Amsterdam. Can anyone clarify whether there is a cluster in Korea and whether it is given appropriate prominence by the current wording? Maxchristian ( talk) 09:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Theres an article on wikipedia... on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.211.87 ( talk) 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion it would be appropriate to mention PediaPress in the "Accessing Wikipedia's content" section since PediaPress is an official partner of Wikimedia Foundation. Veikk0.ma ( talk) 06:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
A bit of an unnecessary and odd suggestion, but maybe someone could retake the screenshots with an open-source OS such as Ubuntu. It just thought that it would be a bit more fitting for Wikipedia than OSX. I could probably do it if I was allowed. 184.203.251.231 ( talk) 14:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
After reading this section, I understand that I am allowed to copy Wikipedia content and use it exactly as I want. Right? But do I have to note that I took it from Wikipedia?
An interesting case: This radio host reads from Wikipedia (not exactly, but enough to be plagiarism), without mentioning Wikipedia. It is obviously plagiarism, but is it legal? Is it in accordance with the Wikipedia license?
88.234.3.161 ( talk) 18:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it better to say nothing ,than to lie about something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.171.193 ( talk) 10:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is rank 5 in the world on the Alexa website as of 17/11/11 but it is stated as only rank six on this page. should be changed i think! 85.225.252.139 ( talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Half of the chapter on "Quality of writing" reflects the view of one single person. This is lack of balance. -- Ettrig ( talk) 20:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Would it be considered bias if this article got nominated for "good" or "featured" status? 71.146.20.62 ( talk) 07:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This proposed addition to the article on WP lays out the actual administrative features of WP with links to the appropriate articles governing its jurisdiction. Some outline of this structure is a glaring omission in the present WP article. That information can be helpful to WP contributors in understanding how WP is run. I hope those with greater familiarity with this topic will suggest improvements and correct inaccuracies, and that this section ultimately can be added to this article. I originally wrote this section for Citizendium, and will correct any inaccuracies turned up here in that presentation. The proposal is below. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is not about how wisely authority is wielded, nor about how responsibly duties are exercised, but about the authority and duties of various agencies as documented by WP itself, however these precepts are used in practice. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Governance of Wikipedia
This section describes the formalities of Wikipedia organization, as described in various documents on Wikipedia.
The contributors or editors of Wikipedia participate subject to a number of policies and guidelines governing behavior and content. [1] These rules are supervised by various authorities: Jimmy Wales, nominally in a position of ultimate authority, [2] although he has deferred in most instances to the leadership of Wikipedia, [3] [4] [5] the ~34 [6] present Bureaucrats or Crats, [7] the ~728 [8] active Administrators or Admins, [9] and another group called the Arbitration Committee or ArbCom, [10] with 15-18 members or Arbs, depending upon the rules adopted each year. There were 15 active Arbitrators in 2011. [11] The Wikimedia Foundation [12] or its designated agents also have authority to impose bans against IP addresses [13] for pages, topics, or the entire site. [14]
The Bureaucrats or Crats are a category introduced in 2004, and have only a few limited activities. Among these, they may remove Administrators and Bureaucrats if so instructed by the Arbitration Committee, and appoint Administrators and Bureaucrats following a selection procedure. Selection follows a discussion process, Bureaucrats decide what criteria constitute a "consensus" upon appointment, at the end of which a Bureaucrat reviews the situation to see whether there is a "consensus". Consensus must exceed 85%, but final judgment is one of Bureaucrat discretion. [15] As a result, Bureaucrats have almost complete control over appointment of new Bureaucrats. The number of newly appointed Bureaucrats has steadily declined over the years, with only two successful candidacies in 2011. Bureaucrats serve indefinitely.
The activities of Administrators or Admins are described in a how-to guide instructing Administrators on the use of their powers, which include actions to block users' IP addresses. There is a distinction between a ban and a block. A ban requires "consensus", and is a formal warning without removal of the ability to edit, while a block can be imposed by a single Administrator and prevents editing to some degree, large or small. [16]
The nomination and selection of Administrators is supervised by existing Bureaucrats, who decide whether, in their opinion, a candidate has garnered sufficient support in discussion of their candidacy, a process like that for appointing Bureaucrats. A "consensus" exceeding 70% is required, but the judgement of Bureaucrats is the deciding factor. A list of unsuccessful requests shows the number of refusals peaked at 543 in 2006 with 353 acceptances, and has steadily declined since as the number of applicants has dropped off, with only 155 refusals and 75 acceptances in 2010, and 75 refusals and 46 acceptances as of end of October 2011.
Administrators serve indefinitely, but can be disbarred by Bureaucrats if the Arbitration Committee formally requests it. [17] "Throughout the history of the project, there has been a convention that adminship may be removed only in cases of clear abuse." [18] A possible exception to the "clear abuse" criterion is the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity, which appropriates to the Arbitration Committee the power to limit an Administrator's activities whenever the Arbitration Committee deems that Administrator "consistently make[s] questionable enforcement administrative actions." and to decommission the Administrator if they override another Administrator's actions without the Arbitration Committee's written authorization or "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". [19]
As of 2009 there had been 47 removals during the history of WP, and following 2009 no public record has been maintained of these actions. [20] Of the approximately 1,526 Administrators empowered, 207 (or 13.5%) have declared themselves open to recall under circumstances devised by themselves. [21] [22] There is a provision for possible removal of inactive Administrators. [23]
Although attempts have been made to implement a community-based removal of Administrators, [24] none ever has been agreed upon.
Members of the Arbitration Committee (referred to as ArbCom) or Arbs act in concert or in sub-groups to impose binding solutions to conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, mainly by imposing, or defining violations under which they will impose, bans and blocks upon users' IP addresses. Though disputes commonly arise over content, the Arbitration Committee explicitly excludes all content issues from their deliberations and focuses upon disciplinary actions. [25] Aside from enforcing an end to disputes, the Arbitration Committee can authorize users to irreversibly delete certain material, for example, material considered defamatory, [26] and can request Bureaucrats to exercise de-Adminship under the circumstances described in the above section: Administrators. Arbitrators are elected annually in one-year or overlapping two-year terms, and also can be appointed directly by Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. The election rules are debated each year.
Wikipedia is one of a dozen projects of Wikimedia, owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Among the functionaries of WikiMedia are the Stewards [27] of the Wikimedia wikis who have complete access to the wiki interface on all Wikimedia wikis, including the ability to change any and all user rights and groups; and the SysOps of the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, [28] who manage and maintain the Wikimedia Foundation servers. The tools used by the Stewards in exercising control over the wikis of Wikimedia are described in a handbook. [29] Some indication of the control given to Stewards and System Administrators can be found on the WikiMedia web pages. [28]
The overall control is by the ten-member Wikimedia Board of Trustees one of whom is Jimmy Wales. The present membership is found here.
References and notes
While any arbitration decision may be nominally appealed to Jimbo Wales, it is exceedingly unusual for him to intervene.
Final policy decisions are up to me, as always. But the license provides a strong counter-balance to my power...I must listen carefully to all elements of the community, and make decisions that are satisfactory to the best interests of the encyclopedia as a whole.
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accesssdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
Brews ohare ( talk) 18:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
-- GRuban ( talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
←outdent DVdm: Thanks for that link to Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself. I guess time will tell whether there is consensus that WP has been used properly in this proposed section as a source about itself. I do think that it has been used as it should be. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Lest we lose sight of the point here in a debate over whether some guideline or policy applies or not, or whether some adjective is appropriate, can it be agreed that some attempt at laying out the organizational structure should be a part of this article on Wikipedia? Brews ohare ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree 0% with the second, as it flatly wipes the core policy wp:verifiability, sub WP:CIRCULAR off the table, saying:
←outdent Per Cusop Dingle, I've corrected a link for RfB, deleted the word "well" from "well described", and amended the discussion of the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid any impression of hierarchy there. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
For those who may wish to find secondary sources for the proposed material here, below is a list of sources such as I could locate. Unfortunately, none of them really is satisfactory: some are inaccurate and most are oriented toward being a "user manual" for WP, and do not attempt to lay out its organization. Brews ohare ( talk) 05:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) A detailed discussion of how WP works, including the arbitration processes. Some subsidiary web links are found
here.{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) A basic "how-to" manual for readers and first-time contributors.A draft article along these lines is in this draft. All are invited to look it over and make changes with accompanying discussion on its Talk page. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The revised version of this article is now posted at Wikipedia:Formal organization. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)