![]() | 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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Shouldn't there be some mention of the yearly 1/3 screen banners begging for money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.153.73 ( talk) 06:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Just heard/read about it. here's the news search. CarolMooreDC 23:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Blanking ever page on Wikipedia would be the finest thing Jimmy (look at me I created a website) Wales ever did. 86.158.101.167 ( talk) 21:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just hidden this as it appears to be a little POV? The preceding text is discussing the history of the encyclopaedia and this paragraph deals with the number of articles and article creations peak in 2006/7:
"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"
I have a couple of issues with it:
The second sentence is equally OR and POVish - claiming that this elite group of editors could result in 0 article creation due to walling in. Unfortunately this is OR and both sentences appear to be unrefd - I have hidden them until discussion here is completed.
I suggest leaving them both out. Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
According to Alexa, wikipedia is the world 6th most visited website. source: http://www.alexa.com/topsites
please update the many letters/this article, which claim otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.236.47 ( talk) 00:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph on the arbitration committee says the following about its remedies:
The study about the arbitration committee defines the anti-consensus category this way:
Why should "editwars" and "revertwars" be considered as anti-consensual? I would be interested to know exactly which disruptive ways this category includes, but the study doesn't specify. The study mentions in footnotes on page 177 that " The case sample is available with the authors. ". -- Chealer ( talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the Lead section says, "As of January 2012, there are editions of Wikipedia in 283 languages", but the Infobox says there are 282 in total. Can someone investigate and fix this? Nightscream ( talk) 01:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that some one contributing to the List of Wikipedias article typed in that there were Wikipedias in 283 languages after some one had said that there was a Wikipedia in the Mingrelian language. I shall be quite happy to look at the article and make the necessary amendments. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I see it is the infobox which says 282, and I am not quite sure how to fix this! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently there's a hat note "For Wikipedia's formal organizational structure, see Wikipedia:Formal organization." ..Why? It's an essay (and should be tagged as such). It's already linked through Wikipedia:About which should be sufficient. Why is an essay being given such prominence in the encyclopaedia article, without consensus? Яehevkor ✉ 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I think this article should include the prospective blackout of the english version occurring this wednesday (19-Jan-2012). As far as I can remember, this would be the first time the english page is going down, regardless of the reason. I think its pretty important for the wikipedia with the most articles out there. Cheers. Danielfc.mx ( talk) 07:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Also worth noting that they are going against their longstanding point of view of neutrality — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.26.141.133 (
talk)
01:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree - this blackout should be mentioned in the article.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
22:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Although that might be better mentioned in the article History of Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Where the blackout is already mentioned! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have now made a brief reference to this in the article (under the sub-heading "History of Wikipedia") but I did not wish to type too much on this as it is already covered in History of Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPOV only applies to articles, so the SOPA blackouts didn't actually violate it. Just clearing that up. 143.92.1.33 ( talk) 03:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Talking to yourself on Wikipedia... Tut tut tut. 203.11.71.124 ( talk) 08:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The presentation Wikipedia:Formal organization has undergone extensive review and editing. It appears to contain useful information for readers and contributors that would be more likely to be found if placed in Wikipedia than in its present form as a project page.
Please evaluate whether it is now suitable for inclusion in the article Wikipedia as a subsection, or what changes might bring it into that form. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Note. If the quoted policy statement is not applicable, then it should be unambiguously rephrased or even removed from the wp:V policy. - DVdm ( talk) 18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that it either should be reworded to:Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.
or it should be reworded to:Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself,
(Emphasis for clarity — not to be included).Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may not be cited as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.
So, in order to avoid this discussion and future similar discussions, the policy statement would just need either 3 extra, or "4 extra and 2 less" words to become undisputably unambiguous.
Would anyone mind if the policy would be reworded to one of these alternatives? - DVdm ( talk) 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- DVdm ( talk) 20:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Citing Wikipedia to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself, is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of Wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources.
I develop applications for the BlackBerry PlayBook. And I noticed that someone released a 1.99 application that is really just wikipedia:
http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/76936/?lang=en
This raises a good question to me, is it legal for someone to sell access to Wikipedia? Just curious. I'm certain this guy did this for a free PlayBook.
70.72.48.24 ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the part on sexual content has links to explicit content now I know that wikipedia isn't concurred but shouldn't the links to these articles not be linked please reply -- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The article currently makes the unsourced claim (bolding mine):
It also contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic.[114] It was made clear that this policy is not up for debate, and the policy has sometimes proved controversial.
But it is _clearly_ stated in the lead of a professional news article that "massive sitewide pornography purges and pledges to “do better.”" [1] which directly contradicts this unsourced claim. This page is protected so I am unable to change it. Can someone please correct the article to reflect that according to reliable sources that Wikipedia distributes explicit pornography, including child pornography, and has pledged to "do better" but has, according to the sources, failed to live up to those promises?
Anything less would be editorial bias— the same kind of claims are often taken without question on other articles so long as they are verifiable
Cheers. -- 71.191.197.79 ( talk) 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear sir/madam,
I want to create a descriptive page about the tourist area of our region. How can I do that task ?
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meroramu ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The article head includes links to two pronunciations of "Wikipedia". The first one, commons:File:En-uk-Wikipedia.ogg, is very poor quality and should be replaced. In my opinion, the audio is too quiet and it noticeably peaks on the plosive 'PEE' syllable. I'm not in a position to rerecord it, so I'm bringing it to the attention of any editors watching this page. I'll look to see if there's any maintenance tag I can add to the Commons page to alert this to the attention of other interested editors. Matt ( talk) 21:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
What is lying? why people tell lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.30.44 ( talk) 09:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This article needs work. I'm surprised to find that it's not a shining example. It would be quick-failed at FAC. It would help if the Foundation could get the stats "dump" happening again. A lot of stats haven't appeared since the start of 2010. There was talk that this would be corrected January 2012, but nothing thus far. With updated stats, at least we could get a move on freshening up the underlying stats for this article. Tony (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it honestly possible for this article to be without bias. Many editors love Wikipedia and wouldn't that make any user who edits this page someone who has a conflict of interest? Just throwing it out there. Hghyux ( talk) 00:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit removing links to WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment is based upon the in-line comment "per WP:SEEALSO the see also section is for links to related articles", which seems to me inapplicable, inasmuch as the WP hierarchical structure and editing environment appear to me to be very much pertinent to the topic Wikipeida. The See also link in this comment suggests that "common sense" be applied to this section and that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic", which clearly is the case here. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What is an article?-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that a For...see link to WP:Formal organization analogous to the present WP:About link is appropriate and would be a service to readers interested in the organizational structure of WP, a topic quite pertinent to the subject of the article Wikipedia.
What is the general view of this matter? Please comment here. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
That section seems too long. Maybe the vagueness of the section title contributed for the section to expand without clear direction. I think one solution is to start a section on content. I tentatively gave a name "appraisal of content". It will cover, at least, reliability, sexual content and quality of wiring. (I'm not sure about what to do with notability.) -- Taku ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I think we should make each section of wikipedia relevant to its own topic, rather than making such a detailed article. 140.198.42.45 ( talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me know what you think.
CircularReason ( talk) 00:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it is a cool page) -- 98.207.235.212 ( talk) 02:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I need a little back-up here.
I changed a variety of things about the "Criticism" page. It was poorly worded, and disorganized.
Me and Tepeat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teapeat) may end up in an edit battle here, but I'm not going for anything shady.
He said, "Blogs are not considered reliable sources" so I took out the blogs, and added Journal articles.
If he takes it out again, I am worried about his motivation. CircularReason ( talk) 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Good question. The short answer is: they seem different. Take two statements. If one person said, "At the end of his life, Elvis was fat" and another said "By 1970, Elvis had become obese" these are both factually accurate, but the first one hints at a value judgment (Elvis is a failure, he lost it, he died a loser). If a third person said, "By 1970, Elvis was still fit and slender," that would be factually inaccurate (as well as possibly biased, but primarily inaccurate). Some mistakes are innocent. So I guess all bias is inaccurate, but not all inaccuracy is biased. Cheers, mate. CircularReason ( talk) 17:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Main Purpose of Wikipedia
Yes users of the global web should party to the founding president of the global Wikipedia web as a privilege for users, yes there will always be vandals, however, there are some vandals actually testing the security of Wikipedia, because they are Wikipedia administrators, confirmed users, and journalists travelling and trying to test the security of their bots and honest users in order to find ways of strengthening security, thus, why in the weird world do we need Wikipedia? Use the usual reliable references they need to support the article for any report to transfer other newspapers, and the main idea is the site also helps for news documents and news records forgotten and needed to be analyzed, such as movies, festivities, weather disasters, latest scams, and more. It is by this right Wikipedia maybe allowed freely and cautiously to secure it's need in the far future. Auto-confirmed user from CVU.-- 74.34.89.122 ( talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
From the article:
My understanding is that Wikipedia may only contain an article about itself if it's written from an outside perspective, i.e. like someone else than Wikipedia was writing it. So these direct wikilinks to tags struck me as odd, as they seem to be going directly through this layer of opacity. Is such a thing allowed? JIP | Talk 14:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand that we all love Wikipedia. But the lead section seems a little too eager to defend ourselves and dismiss valid criticism. For as much time as I've put into editing, I still take much of Wikipedia's content with a grain of salt. Here are the phrases I find problematic in the lead section, along with why I find each problematic:
Taken together, these passages give the appearance of a NNPOV toward ourselves. As some others have noted on this page, we must be careful to remain unbiased. I suggest we remove or rephrase some of these defenses and let the articles speak for themselves. CaseyPenk ( talk) 08:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This claim is supported by four sources. None of them, that I can see, is by Zittrain (who could be wikilinked, and is no longer at Oxford). One is a blog by "Dan". One is a post by Jimbo raising a concern about an article. I think we should have a sentence to this effect, but it should be properly sourced. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
A useful addition to the article would be info on what has been Wikipedia's impact on pending high profile court cases in the past. I'm suggesting this because I'm interested in how much impact the article Shooting of Trayvon Martin might have on the pending court case The State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This edit moved the paragraph on derivatives out of the History section, to a new "Derivative encyclopedias" section, commenting "A discussion of derivatives doesn't belong in the history of Wikipedia itself; it's irrelevant to that particular section, breaks up the ongoing discussion about growth in articles / edits, and interrupts the chronological order of the history". I think it's a good idea to have a different section covering derivatives outside of the History section. I also agree that the paragraph may have broken the part on growth. However, I disagree that discussion of derivatives doesn't belong in the history of Wikipedia, in so far as these are forks (which is not the case for all "derivatives" mentioned - in fact, although I don't know these "derivatives", I doubt that qualifying all of them this way is accurate). Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a project, and the history covers both aspects. If the project (and its community) was hurt by Enciclopedia Libre, this is relevant to Wikipedia's history. Also, there is information in that paragraph which is very much about Wikipedia (decision on advertisements and domain change).
I am tempted to just undo the change, but since I do think a coverage of derivatives outside of the history section is interesting, and this needs to be done carefully to minimize duplication, I am not doing that for now. -- Chealer ( talk) 17:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
While organizing the list of External Links into columns, I noticed that the following external link points to a secure server. Can anyone please fix this, so it points to a non-secure website? Thanks. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 14:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't remember the date, but around 2004 Wikipedia was shutted down due to lack of money that is required to run the servers. There was only a message when you entered the site, along with the logo. Does anyone know more about it? I think that a screenshot can be obtained from Wayback Machine, if I knew the date. Hopefully, it looks as it looked back then (no missing pictures or anything else). Galzigler ( talk) 15:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I do not remember anything about this. I do remember that in January this year, i.e. 2012, Jimmy Wales organized a one-day shut down of Wikipedia as a protest against some internet policy of which he did not approve, although I do not know enough about this to put it in the article. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 10:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
All is well, I have just seen that news of this is in the article that at the end of the section marked "History" - that date was January 18, 2012, and what I am thinking of is mentioned as the final paragraph under the section with the sub-heading "History". ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 10:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
In the "Dispute resolution" section there is a "the the", but for some reason the Edit button doesn't show so I can't fix it. Can someone repair this, this must be one of the most-read pages on the wiki and it doesn't look good to have such an obvious mistake. MOGISM ( talk) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not “the Semantic MediaWiki”, i guess. -- Aschroet ( talk) 18:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC).
Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior
Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, the copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of Florida, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers reside.
(last word should be changed to "are located.") Mfreistedt ( talk) 22:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It has been fixed, thanks for your help. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 16:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
A long time has passed since the last peer review. It appears that this article is stuck in an editing limbo. I am going to recommend this to peer review in 24 hours from this post. If anyone has any objections, then they may state them. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
In the subsection entitled "Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters," Warren Buffet and Richard Branson are referred to as "zillionaires." I could not remove this because this page seems to be protected. 129.59.115.14 ( talk) 14:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Links to WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment have been removed by Blackburne from the See...also section of Wikipedia shown below:
The in-line explanation for removal is that these links are "inappropriate non-article links, per WP:SEEALSO." However, according to WP:SEEALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." On this basis, these links are appropriate here, as their purpose is to guide readers to the scattered WP documentation about its organization and procedures.
These articles are clearly labeled as guidance essays, which I suspect is the origin of Blackburne's reservations about them, as in his mind they are not "articles" and so should never be linked in any article, whatever its nature. That is a very limited view, and assumes utility to readers has no importance.
Despite their labeling as "guidance essays", these are not "guidance" in the sense of being "opinion" or "interpretation" pieces. Instead, they are "guidance" in the sense of leading readers to the appropriate WP statements and articles about WP organization and procedures. They are in the public domain, and any editor can add documentation on other aspects, or correct any inaccuracies.
As WP information is dispersed on many pages and is not terribly easy to find, this guidance is useful to the community. Some indication is that WP:Formal organization has about 100 hits a day while WP: Editing environment has about 15-20 hits a day.
With the obvious "guidance essay" info box at the top, and the absence of advice or interpretation, no reader should confuse these essays with WP policies or guidelines. Rather, these guidance essays are obviously aids to finding WP documentation about how things are organized and how they work. They provide useful See...also links for readers of Wikipedia.
I'd like to reinstate these links. Please comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
John: The titles of most articles give a pretty good idea of what they are about. The Category links show readers which articles exist and what they are about, which otherwise will go unnoticed. In contrast, the Special searches link already present contains a lot of stuff of no interest at all, including zillions of pages of links to various issues of the Signpost that basically mean these searches are useless entirely once you reach Signpost and have to page through acres of these listings.
So far, you continue to pursue your opposition to improvement of the article Wikipedia by listing WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment, simply reiterating legalities as you see them, with no attention to their purpose. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
They are badly written, POV essays. Now that describes many essays, and is often the point of them, to provide a personal, alternative viewpoint to policy and guidance that reflects consensus. But that doesn't matter: the guidelines on the see also section are clear, that section is for article links; not essays you've written, or any other links to the WP namespace.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 16:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I just want to say I'm with John. See also is for links to other articles pages; not pages in other name spaces. It's simply how we use the section and this is not controversial. We might want to put some links at the further reading or external links, but the pages in question (formal organization and other one) don't seem particular neutral and also they appear idiosyncratic. -- Taku ( talk) 22:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose we move the history section to after "Nature". I think it is more logical to provide the reader with a good explanation of what the subject is before we talk about its history (which appears to basically be what the "Nature" section is). Also, this appears to generally be how articles are organized already, including today's featured article--π--which has a "Fundamentals" section before "History" and after the lede.
What do y'all think? Byelf2007 ( talk) 22 July 2012
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am editing some text [1] 119.226.77.150 ( talk) 08:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The introduction contains the following text:
"Other disparagers of Wikipedia simply point out vulnerabilities inherent to any wiki that may be edited by anyone. "
The word "disparager" seems biased and emotionally charged. The word "simply" implies diminution. The "inherent to any wiki that may be edited by anyone" part seems like an argument in favor of Wikipedia being made.
It just seems like the wording could be changed to sound more neutral.
129.59.115.14 ( talk) 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Section 3.1, Accuracy of Content:
"He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal..."
should be
"... from systemic biases, and novel results, in his opinion, are..."
although it would be even clearer to say
"... from systemic biases, and novel results are, in his opinion, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.9.8 ( talk) 17:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is on its way to becoming an FA article. As such, unless it is critical to the article, I am going to start purging all information that has no cites. The ones that are critical will need to be addressed once I am done with the purge. But I am not going to do this now. I will start doing this in 72 hours from this post. That is 6:30 GMT-5, on Tuesday, August 1st. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 22:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ever-wonder-where-wikipedias-info-comes-from-here-are-its-top-5-sources/ — A most interesting and intriguing graphic, content, and extensive researched list. — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Should it really be "Britannica replied that the study's methology and conclusions were flawed" I'm guessing it should methodology, not methology. I'm from the Midwest, and I watch Breaking Bad, so if I'm wrong here I can probably point you in the right direction anyway, but pretty sure I'm not. If Britannica really said "methology" then it'd be a pretty hilarous (and necessary) (sic), at the very least.
Yeah, your definitely right. There is no "methology" word in the English Language. It should really be changed to "methodology". -- 205.174.125.90 ( talk) 16:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the article lead has a short discussion on the criticisms levelled against wikipedia. I think this is the wrong place for it - it's unnecessary clutter in a very restricted space and I'd suggest it looks a bit defensive putting it right up there. So I think most of it should go in a new Criticisms section where it can be tidied and expanded a little, with just a short note left behind on policies. If nobody objects in the next day or so and I remember, I'll get on with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think it was a good idea to remove so much content from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, not just introduce it. There are now large parts of the article which are not summarized in the lead. I think that there certainly is room to improve the content which was deleted, but deleting it was not an improvement. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Since there is a subject already here, I may as well point out that we should open up a page called The trouble with Wikipedia... and all critiscisms in the talk page. I have already started creating it. If you have an objection go to my talk page. TollHRT52 ( talk) 13:27, 4 September 2012 (AEST)
The first paragraph under the heading "Dispute Resolution" could use a little bit of revision. In particular "... when a change is repeatedly done by one editor and then undone by another, an 'edit war' may be asserted to have begun by the editor who chooses to engage in that assertion" is beyond awkward. My natural inclination was to go for something like "... when a change is repeatedly done by one editor and then undone by another, an 'edit war' may be considered to have begun" but this is problematic because the assertion is referenced in the next sentence (which has it's own problems). I'm concerned that if I change too much I may mangle the intention because I'm not terribly familiar with the subject matter (most of my edits are minor). Perhaps someone with a bit more familiarity with the subject could take a crack at it. Olleicua ( talk) 07:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Could we get someone fluent in both English and Italian to look at the Italian article on Wikipedia to see if it could improve this one? If you do find something, could you put it in your user space as a rough translation? Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 17:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the word 'Wikipedia' should be italicized. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_face: "Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized." — John Biancato 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Further comments should probably go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#'Wikipedia' is not in italics. 71.212.250.193 ( talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The header "Arbitration" under Nature>>Rules and laws>>English Wikipedia is one header size smaller than it should be, a very small fix. -- Nitsuaeekcm ( talk) 01:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there a fork that covers the usage of wikipedia as a reference in legal ruling? Smallman12q ( talk) 20:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
but stuff happens, yolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.148.0.190 ( talk) 17:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
May I ask what are the superscript numbers in brackets They look like this: [22]
86.167.17.148 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) place t
I just talked to the italians. Their article for Wikipedia is not as good as this one, and there is no information that can be gathered, as we have thrice the size of theirs. So, I am taking that out of the checklist. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 15:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I want a review to see if Wikipedia meets the criterium for an A-Class article. This will allow us to see how far this article is from becoming a featured article once again. Since becoming a good article, this article has received many changes, many improvements. I think now is the time to upgrade the rating. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 02:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I liked Wikipedia very much. It helped me very much. It gave me lot of information. It helped me to do school projects. I sincerely thank Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.160.101 ( talk) 18:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It is important to note that all the information that is published is not true, there should be some form of control and be confident in the information published.
But there are also pages that verify this information and allows security.
Martha Mora. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
200.31.93.140 (
talk)
22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by this? All of the information that is published must meet Reliability Guidelines and must be cited. Information that is not cited is removed eventually, and before that is marked with a Citation Needed template. What more information do you need? Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 22:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
维基百科是一个非常糟糕的网站非常非常绝望的网站,维基百科给我错误的信息。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.182.236 ( talk) 05:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC) (Wikipedia is a very bad site is very, very desperate websites, Wikipedia gave me the wrong information. Translated from Chinese)
I'm doing research for Wikiquote, if anyone knows of interesting or pithy quotes about q:MediaWiki, please let me know at q:Talk:MediaWiki, it would be most appreciated! Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 17:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Can I just ask why is EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on Wikipedia AMERICANIZED!!! That every single movie has to feature dollars when their are currently only TWO countries that uses the dollar and that is America and Australia. Why does every single page have to feature AMERICAN sources only when someone features something from BBC news its removed yet when something is posted from CNN it's classed as fact and left on. This website is so biased towards American values and whatnot. Like every movie doesn't matter if its been made in Japan, Uk, France, Germany ect the first line on every single Movie that has an American studio attached to it has it stated as an American movie. Its BS. America isn't the only country in this DAMN WORLD!
Would there be any merit in including a screenshot of the Windows 8 app 'Wikipedia' published by Wikimedia? if so, see the attached file
NotinREALITY 04:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 56("Founder shares cautionary tale of libel in cyberspace By Brian J. Buchanan". Firstamendmentcenter.org. November 30, 2005. Retrieved July 13, 2010.) in section 1.3 Vandalism contains a dead link. I googled the article name and author and found that the article has been moved to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/founder-shares-cautionary-tale-of-libel-in-cyberspace. The current link should be removed and replaced. 69.116.218.170 ( talk) 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that this article should contain a section detailing the manner in which Wikipedia deals with attempts by corporations, by political activists, or by governments to present advertising, ideology, or propaganda within Wikipedia's articles, in writing that is disguised as Neutral Point of View.
For example, would it be possible for a government to infiltrate Wikipedia's editors, learn the system, and then serve as an opening wedge for a take-over of Wikipedia's senior editorship by incremental means? The most likely goal of such an attempt would be to control Wikipedia's content on issues which the government regards as politically sensitive, to ensure that its own side was portrayed sympathetically and that the other side(s) were portrayed, perhaps incorrectly, as aggressors or as evil-doers or as people who are so unreasonable that they might be regarded as "crazy."
How do Wikipedia's senior editors know that there isn't, among themselves, already someone who intends to make such an attempt at taking over the Wikipedia project on behalf of a government (or a corporation, or a political activist group, etc.)?
Or, for that matter, how can anyone else be certain that this has not already been accomplished? How can readers be sure that the "Neutral Point of View" isn't an illusion that would be difficult to perceive without direct experience with the article's subject?
173.87.162.84 ( talk) 10:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't we put a payment plan on Wikipedia so there wouldn't be many more vandalism, edit warring, blocking, and I always see advertisements of Wikipedia asking for donations. It is just an idea that i just thought of and feel free to discuss how you feel of this? Think about it, if we have a payment plan in Wikipedia, there wouldn't be so many negative or nonconstructive informations in the page because only people who are willing to pay to edit, would put useful information in the page. Furthermore, the Wikipedia page would receive money for its needs.--( Slurpy121 ( talk) 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC))
Please keep in mind that, per Wikipedia's talk page guideline, this page is to be used only for discussing how to improve the article about Wikipedia. Discussions of how to improve the Wikipedia website are inappropriate here. Thank you. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 06:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
In the New Users paragraph in this article, where it says "contributor is expected to build a user page", perhaps "user page" could be linked to Wikipedia:User pages -- Burnishe ( talk) 12:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
In this article, perhaps the New User paragraph could include a link to Wikipedia:Tutorial, (or a Wikipedia New User Welcome page, if there is one). I think the suggestion of "cultural rituals" might be a little bit intimidating to new users if it's not obvious how to become informed about them. -- Burnishe ( talk) 12:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence has incorrect wording and doesn't make sense in its current form:
This means that, with the exception of particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages that are "protected" from some degree of editing,
and should be reworded to
This means that, with the exception of particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages that are "protected" to some degree from editing,
121.45.193.118 ( talk) 13:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following punctuation error should be fixed, changing a comma to a full stop:
and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work,
to
and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work.
121.45.193.118 ( talk) 14:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
"When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, there may arise a systemic bias, such as non-opposite definitions for apparent antonyms. In 2011 Wales noted that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, which predominantly consists of young males with high education levels in the developed world (cf. above)[146] Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally, for example favouring certain ethnicities or majority religions.[185] It may more specifically follow the biases of Internet culture, inclining to being young, male, English speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases of its own may include over-emphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events."
MAJOR OMISSION: according to the cited source, 90% of wikipedia editors are white males. So naturally, the sentence should read: "... which predominantly consists of young white males with high education levels in the developed world... inclining to being young, white, male, English speaking, educated..."
Thanks.
Reference 92("Andrea Ciffolilli, "Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia," First Monday December 2003.") has a broken link. It should be replaced to http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1108/1028
Flebuz ( talk) 12:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
About this sentence:
I think this is too specific. The first paragraph isn't a place to go into detailed statistics. Article counts and number of language editors make sense, I suppose, but anything more is too specific. The paragraph already notes the rank of Wikipedia; that's enough to establish that Wikipedia is a popular website. Not to mention US traffic is US-centric. Why US? Not British? -- Taku ( talk) 14:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, but does anybody know how I can search for images on Wikipedia. Is there any search bar where I can search for pictures? Peta8 ( talk) 17:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia identifies every person and organization by nationality. This article should say that Wikipedia is American. (Of course that's obvious to non-American readers). Fourtildas ( talk) 06:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Does editing talk pages make one an editor? I mainly stick to Talk Pages because the main pages don't allow me to be individualistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.202.28 ( talk) 12:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thread is unrelated to the topic of this page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sedition or Subsidy.Many of the pages in relation to current affairs fall under the heading of ´ sedition or subsidy´ which is a propagandist trick or treat civil society & corporate halloween con. Note that halloween was orginally spelled holloween, of two words, hollow & wean, implying an empty feeding. You should definitely seperate those pages from other pages due the stigmata associated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 ( talk) 14:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The article only makes references to MySQL as the database used by MediaWiki, while the entry for MariaDB states that Wikipedia is using MariaDB, (they use this reference), so apparently Wikipedia is not fully migrated to MariaDB but it would be soon. I feel that this article should reflect that, either specify that MySQL is on the way out, or that MariaDB is the current DB. I could try to make some changes by my self but they would probably be reverted seconds later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.156.144 ( talk) 10:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thread is unrelated to the topic of this page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
-- Non wikipedia- wikis! -- Thanks to wikipedia, lots of other wikis, mostly fan sites, have been created! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.145.218 ( talk) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|
I recently italicized the title of this article and cited other works, the titles of which are also italicized. I feel that to not italicize the title of this great work may very well be degratory. Before anyone reverts my edit again, please explain to me how you are not degrading Wikipedia by deitalicizing it's title. Thank you for your consideration. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 06:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
In Cold Blood is more than just a book. To say that Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia does not negate the fact that it is an encyclopedia, the title of which should be italicized in accordance with the MOS. There must be very good reason to go against that guideline. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 07:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
...it seems to me that the standard convention is to put the titles of online encyclopedia in normal fonts; not just here but everywhere on the Internet.
I've been told that my edit summary was unstylish in two ways. To be clear, I did not call my fellow contributor, TakuyaMurata, a vandal nor his reverts vandalism. I stated that his reverts bordered on the "v" word. As for my uppercase "shouts", the software leaves little choice in editsummaries when it comes to emphasis. If I'd had my druthers I would have used italics or bold, but neither of those work in edit summaries. I was shooting for emphasis, as in community consensus, that's all. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Forgive, but your arguments above have so many disagreements with themselves, I wouldn't know where to begin.
Ignore long-earned community consensus just to maintain the status quo?
As I said, I wouldn't know where to begin.
I can only say that we do not hesitate to italicize the titles of articles that, by our Manual of Style and by global convention, should be italicized.
If the title is a book, like Man's Search for Meaning, then we italicize it. Collections, such as the poems in Leaves of Grass are italicized. Reference works such as the Britannica, italicized. These are italicized in line with global convention and our MoS.
I would wager – and win – that if somebody were to write a book about Wikipedia – wait... it's already been done – we do not hesitate to italicize Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, a book about Wikipedia.
This article, by its own admission in the hatnote, is about the encyclopedia.
Anything in this article that elaborates too much on Wikipedia items that are not about the encyclopedia should be split out into their own article or into existing articles. Those items that are not about the encyclopedia, that are about the Wikipedia (project) or Wikipedia (Community), should not be italicized.
By global convention and our own MoS this article's title and every instance of "Wikipedia" in it that refers to " Wikipedia the encyclopedia" should be italicized.
has never been in italics. It's not gonna be in italics now." — Janus Savimbi.
Indeed. And if there were such consensus regarding the title "Wikipedia", that's exactly what we'd do.
We should remove information concerning the site's method of operation and place it in separate articles? Why?
Please cite evidence...
I see the article on Wikipedia the encyclopedia and I slap on the template. But am I on my way? No. I find myself in an edit war with another contributor who is probably one of this article's stewards who feels that his lofty standards are above and better than the standard from the MoS
the convention that was worked on by several editors who, after many hours of research and discussion, came to the consensus that the Wikipedia project should italicize the titles of online encyclopedias.
I come out of my shell and discuss it with him, because that's the right thing to do. Other stewards chime in
who feel that rather than go by that hard-earned consensus, all that research, this article "has never been in italics. It's not gonna be in italics now." — Janus Savimbi.
There is just such a consensus,
the one that resulted in the addition to the MoS that specifies that online encyclopedias should be italicized,
Not all wikis are reference works like Wikipedia, so they shouldn't be italicized.
As I said, Anything in this article that elaborates too much on Wikipedia items that are not about the encyclopedia..., which I thought was quite clear.
This article is about the encyclopedia, after all.
Already done. It's in the archives of the MoS talk page that's been cited in this discussion. All the research by editors who want to hone and sharpen the MoS to make it fit with global standards. The long discussion, back and forth until community consensus was reached. It's all there.
To me, it is the height of arrogance and ego to want to change all that hard work, and why?
This article's stewards don't want their article title italicized.
Right, anyone who disagrees with you is a "steward" engaging in ownership.
And I stand by that, but I never said anything about them owning the article. I've come up against article ownership on a few occasions, and that's a far cry from what I've been up against here. These are good contributors whom, I feel, are way too overprotective and close to this article.
What's the big deal? It's the article about Wikipedia the reference work.
And it is decidedly arrogant and egotistical to feel that this article is an "exception" to the rule. That word "exception" is nothing but POV puff'nstuff.
Moving on.
In my humble estimation, you, David, as shown by the above accusation on your part, have excessively overreacted to my statements.
But they are Wikipedia articles.
I've read the entire MoS page you linked and don't see anything in it that addresses (even peripherally or by implication) typographical matters in self-references.
Consider also that we don't just write encyclopedia articles; we also write content in project space—a lot of it—and this discussion has a bearing on self-references there as well.
![]() | 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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Shouldn't there be some mention of the yearly 1/3 screen banners begging for money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.153.73 ( talk) 06:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Just heard/read about it. here's the news search. CarolMooreDC 23:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Blanking ever page on Wikipedia would be the finest thing Jimmy (look at me I created a website) Wales ever did. 86.158.101.167 ( talk) 21:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just hidden this as it appears to be a little POV? The preceding text is discussing the history of the encyclopaedia and this paragraph deals with the number of articles and article creations peak in 2006/7:
"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"
I have a couple of issues with it:
The second sentence is equally OR and POVish - claiming that this elite group of editors could result in 0 article creation due to walling in. Unfortunately this is OR and both sentences appear to be unrefd - I have hidden them until discussion here is completed.
I suggest leaving them both out. Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
According to Alexa, wikipedia is the world 6th most visited website. source: http://www.alexa.com/topsites
please update the many letters/this article, which claim otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.236.47 ( talk) 00:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph on the arbitration committee says the following about its remedies:
The study about the arbitration committee defines the anti-consensus category this way:
Why should "editwars" and "revertwars" be considered as anti-consensual? I would be interested to know exactly which disruptive ways this category includes, but the study doesn't specify. The study mentions in footnotes on page 177 that " The case sample is available with the authors. ". -- Chealer ( talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the Lead section says, "As of January 2012, there are editions of Wikipedia in 283 languages", but the Infobox says there are 282 in total. Can someone investigate and fix this? Nightscream ( talk) 01:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that some one contributing to the List of Wikipedias article typed in that there were Wikipedias in 283 languages after some one had said that there was a Wikipedia in the Mingrelian language. I shall be quite happy to look at the article and make the necessary amendments. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I see it is the infobox which says 282, and I am not quite sure how to fix this! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently there's a hat note "For Wikipedia's formal organizational structure, see Wikipedia:Formal organization." ..Why? It's an essay (and should be tagged as such). It's already linked through Wikipedia:About which should be sufficient. Why is an essay being given such prominence in the encyclopaedia article, without consensus? Яehevkor ✉ 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I think this article should include the prospective blackout of the english version occurring this wednesday (19-Jan-2012). As far as I can remember, this would be the first time the english page is going down, regardless of the reason. I think its pretty important for the wikipedia with the most articles out there. Cheers. Danielfc.mx ( talk) 07:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Also worth noting that they are going against their longstanding point of view of neutrality — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.26.141.133 (
talk)
01:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree - this blackout should be mentioned in the article.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
22:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Although that might be better mentioned in the article History of Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Where the blackout is already mentioned! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have now made a brief reference to this in the article (under the sub-heading "History of Wikipedia") but I did not wish to type too much on this as it is already covered in History of Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPOV only applies to articles, so the SOPA blackouts didn't actually violate it. Just clearing that up. 143.92.1.33 ( talk) 03:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Talking to yourself on Wikipedia... Tut tut tut. 203.11.71.124 ( talk) 08:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The presentation Wikipedia:Formal organization has undergone extensive review and editing. It appears to contain useful information for readers and contributors that would be more likely to be found if placed in Wikipedia than in its present form as a project page.
Please evaluate whether it is now suitable for inclusion in the article Wikipedia as a subsection, or what changes might bring it into that form. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Note. If the quoted policy statement is not applicable, then it should be unambiguously rephrased or even removed from the wp:V policy. - DVdm ( talk) 18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that it either should be reworded to:Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.
or it should be reworded to:Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself,
(Emphasis for clarity — not to be included).Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may not be cited as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.
So, in order to avoid this discussion and future similar discussions, the policy statement would just need either 3 extra, or "4 extra and 2 less" words to become undisputably unambiguous.
Would anyone mind if the policy would be reworded to one of these alternatives? - DVdm ( talk) 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- DVdm ( talk) 20:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Citing Wikipedia to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself, is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of Wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources.
I develop applications for the BlackBerry PlayBook. And I noticed that someone released a 1.99 application that is really just wikipedia:
http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/76936/?lang=en
This raises a good question to me, is it legal for someone to sell access to Wikipedia? Just curious. I'm certain this guy did this for a free PlayBook.
70.72.48.24 ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the part on sexual content has links to explicit content now I know that wikipedia isn't concurred but shouldn't the links to these articles not be linked please reply -- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The article currently makes the unsourced claim (bolding mine):
It also contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic.[114] It was made clear that this policy is not up for debate, and the policy has sometimes proved controversial.
But it is _clearly_ stated in the lead of a professional news article that "massive sitewide pornography purges and pledges to “do better.”" [1] which directly contradicts this unsourced claim. This page is protected so I am unable to change it. Can someone please correct the article to reflect that according to reliable sources that Wikipedia distributes explicit pornography, including child pornography, and has pledged to "do better" but has, according to the sources, failed to live up to those promises?
Anything less would be editorial bias— the same kind of claims are often taken without question on other articles so long as they are verifiable
Cheers. -- 71.191.197.79 ( talk) 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear sir/madam,
I want to create a descriptive page about the tourist area of our region. How can I do that task ?
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meroramu ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The article head includes links to two pronunciations of "Wikipedia". The first one, commons:File:En-uk-Wikipedia.ogg, is very poor quality and should be replaced. In my opinion, the audio is too quiet and it noticeably peaks on the plosive 'PEE' syllable. I'm not in a position to rerecord it, so I'm bringing it to the attention of any editors watching this page. I'll look to see if there's any maintenance tag I can add to the Commons page to alert this to the attention of other interested editors. Matt ( talk) 21:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
What is lying? why people tell lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.30.44 ( talk) 09:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This article needs work. I'm surprised to find that it's not a shining example. It would be quick-failed at FAC. It would help if the Foundation could get the stats "dump" happening again. A lot of stats haven't appeared since the start of 2010. There was talk that this would be corrected January 2012, but nothing thus far. With updated stats, at least we could get a move on freshening up the underlying stats for this article. Tony (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it honestly possible for this article to be without bias. Many editors love Wikipedia and wouldn't that make any user who edits this page someone who has a conflict of interest? Just throwing it out there. Hghyux ( talk) 00:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit removing links to WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment is based upon the in-line comment "per WP:SEEALSO the see also section is for links to related articles", which seems to me inapplicable, inasmuch as the WP hierarchical structure and editing environment appear to me to be very much pertinent to the topic Wikipeida. The See also link in this comment suggests that "common sense" be applied to this section and that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic", which clearly is the case here. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What is an article?-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that a For...see link to WP:Formal organization analogous to the present WP:About link is appropriate and would be a service to readers interested in the organizational structure of WP, a topic quite pertinent to the subject of the article Wikipedia.
What is the general view of this matter? Please comment here. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
That section seems too long. Maybe the vagueness of the section title contributed for the section to expand without clear direction. I think one solution is to start a section on content. I tentatively gave a name "appraisal of content". It will cover, at least, reliability, sexual content and quality of wiring. (I'm not sure about what to do with notability.) -- Taku ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I think we should make each section of wikipedia relevant to its own topic, rather than making such a detailed article. 140.198.42.45 ( talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me know what you think.
CircularReason ( talk) 00:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it is a cool page) -- 98.207.235.212 ( talk) 02:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I need a little back-up here.
I changed a variety of things about the "Criticism" page. It was poorly worded, and disorganized.
Me and Tepeat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teapeat) may end up in an edit battle here, but I'm not going for anything shady.
He said, "Blogs are not considered reliable sources" so I took out the blogs, and added Journal articles.
If he takes it out again, I am worried about his motivation. CircularReason ( talk) 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Good question. The short answer is: they seem different. Take two statements. If one person said, "At the end of his life, Elvis was fat" and another said "By 1970, Elvis had become obese" these are both factually accurate, but the first one hints at a value judgment (Elvis is a failure, he lost it, he died a loser). If a third person said, "By 1970, Elvis was still fit and slender," that would be factually inaccurate (as well as possibly biased, but primarily inaccurate). Some mistakes are innocent. So I guess all bias is inaccurate, but not all inaccuracy is biased. Cheers, mate. CircularReason ( talk) 17:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Main Purpose of Wikipedia
Yes users of the global web should party to the founding president of the global Wikipedia web as a privilege for users, yes there will always be vandals, however, there are some vandals actually testing the security of Wikipedia, because they are Wikipedia administrators, confirmed users, and journalists travelling and trying to test the security of their bots and honest users in order to find ways of strengthening security, thus, why in the weird world do we need Wikipedia? Use the usual reliable references they need to support the article for any report to transfer other newspapers, and the main idea is the site also helps for news documents and news records forgotten and needed to be analyzed, such as movies, festivities, weather disasters, latest scams, and more. It is by this right Wikipedia maybe allowed freely and cautiously to secure it's need in the far future. Auto-confirmed user from CVU.-- 74.34.89.122 ( talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
From the article:
My understanding is that Wikipedia may only contain an article about itself if it's written from an outside perspective, i.e. like someone else than Wikipedia was writing it. So these direct wikilinks to tags struck me as odd, as they seem to be going directly through this layer of opacity. Is such a thing allowed? JIP | Talk 14:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand that we all love Wikipedia. But the lead section seems a little too eager to defend ourselves and dismiss valid criticism. For as much time as I've put into editing, I still take much of Wikipedia's content with a grain of salt. Here are the phrases I find problematic in the lead section, along with why I find each problematic:
Taken together, these passages give the appearance of a NNPOV toward ourselves. As some others have noted on this page, we must be careful to remain unbiased. I suggest we remove or rephrase some of these defenses and let the articles speak for themselves. CaseyPenk ( talk) 08:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This claim is supported by four sources. None of them, that I can see, is by Zittrain (who could be wikilinked, and is no longer at Oxford). One is a blog by "Dan". One is a post by Jimbo raising a concern about an article. I think we should have a sentence to this effect, but it should be properly sourced. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
A useful addition to the article would be info on what has been Wikipedia's impact on pending high profile court cases in the past. I'm suggesting this because I'm interested in how much impact the article Shooting of Trayvon Martin might have on the pending court case The State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This edit moved the paragraph on derivatives out of the History section, to a new "Derivative encyclopedias" section, commenting "A discussion of derivatives doesn't belong in the history of Wikipedia itself; it's irrelevant to that particular section, breaks up the ongoing discussion about growth in articles / edits, and interrupts the chronological order of the history". I think it's a good idea to have a different section covering derivatives outside of the History section. I also agree that the paragraph may have broken the part on growth. However, I disagree that discussion of derivatives doesn't belong in the history of Wikipedia, in so far as these are forks (which is not the case for all "derivatives" mentioned - in fact, although I don't know these "derivatives", I doubt that qualifying all of them this way is accurate). Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a project, and the history covers both aspects. If the project (and its community) was hurt by Enciclopedia Libre, this is relevant to Wikipedia's history. Also, there is information in that paragraph which is very much about Wikipedia (decision on advertisements and domain change).
I am tempted to just undo the change, but since I do think a coverage of derivatives outside of the history section is interesting, and this needs to be done carefully to minimize duplication, I am not doing that for now. -- Chealer ( talk) 17:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
While organizing the list of External Links into columns, I noticed that the following external link points to a secure server. Can anyone please fix this, so it points to a non-secure website? Thanks. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 14:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't remember the date, but around 2004 Wikipedia was shutted down due to lack of money that is required to run the servers. There was only a message when you entered the site, along with the logo. Does anyone know more about it? I think that a screenshot can be obtained from Wayback Machine, if I knew the date. Hopefully, it looks as it looked back then (no missing pictures or anything else). Galzigler ( talk) 15:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I do not remember anything about this. I do remember that in January this year, i.e. 2012, Jimmy Wales organized a one-day shut down of Wikipedia as a protest against some internet policy of which he did not approve, although I do not know enough about this to put it in the article. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 10:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
All is well, I have just seen that news of this is in the article that at the end of the section marked "History" - that date was January 18, 2012, and what I am thinking of is mentioned as the final paragraph under the section with the sub-heading "History". ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 10:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
In the "Dispute resolution" section there is a "the the", but for some reason the Edit button doesn't show so I can't fix it. Can someone repair this, this must be one of the most-read pages on the wiki and it doesn't look good to have such an obvious mistake. MOGISM ( talk) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not “the Semantic MediaWiki”, i guess. -- Aschroet ( talk) 18:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC).
Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior
Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, the copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of Florida, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers reside.
(last word should be changed to "are located.") Mfreistedt ( talk) 22:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It has been fixed, thanks for your help. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 16:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
A long time has passed since the last peer review. It appears that this article is stuck in an editing limbo. I am going to recommend this to peer review in 24 hours from this post. If anyone has any objections, then they may state them. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
In the subsection entitled "Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters," Warren Buffet and Richard Branson are referred to as "zillionaires." I could not remove this because this page seems to be protected. 129.59.115.14 ( talk) 14:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Links to WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment have been removed by Blackburne from the See...also section of Wikipedia shown below:
The in-line explanation for removal is that these links are "inappropriate non-article links, per WP:SEEALSO." However, according to WP:SEEALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." On this basis, these links are appropriate here, as their purpose is to guide readers to the scattered WP documentation about its organization and procedures.
These articles are clearly labeled as guidance essays, which I suspect is the origin of Blackburne's reservations about them, as in his mind they are not "articles" and so should never be linked in any article, whatever its nature. That is a very limited view, and assumes utility to readers has no importance.
Despite their labeling as "guidance essays", these are not "guidance" in the sense of being "opinion" or "interpretation" pieces. Instead, they are "guidance" in the sense of leading readers to the appropriate WP statements and articles about WP organization and procedures. They are in the public domain, and any editor can add documentation on other aspects, or correct any inaccuracies.
As WP information is dispersed on many pages and is not terribly easy to find, this guidance is useful to the community. Some indication is that WP:Formal organization has about 100 hits a day while WP: Editing environment has about 15-20 hits a day.
With the obvious "guidance essay" info box at the top, and the absence of advice or interpretation, no reader should confuse these essays with WP policies or guidelines. Rather, these guidance essays are obviously aids to finding WP documentation about how things are organized and how they work. They provide useful See...also links for readers of Wikipedia.
I'd like to reinstate these links. Please comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
John: The titles of most articles give a pretty good idea of what they are about. The Category links show readers which articles exist and what they are about, which otherwise will go unnoticed. In contrast, the Special searches link already present contains a lot of stuff of no interest at all, including zillions of pages of links to various issues of the Signpost that basically mean these searches are useless entirely once you reach Signpost and have to page through acres of these listings.
So far, you continue to pursue your opposition to improvement of the article Wikipedia by listing WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment, simply reiterating legalities as you see them, with no attention to their purpose. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
They are badly written, POV essays. Now that describes many essays, and is often the point of them, to provide a personal, alternative viewpoint to policy and guidance that reflects consensus. But that doesn't matter: the guidelines on the see also section are clear, that section is for article links; not essays you've written, or any other links to the WP namespace.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 16:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I just want to say I'm with John. See also is for links to other articles pages; not pages in other name spaces. It's simply how we use the section and this is not controversial. We might want to put some links at the further reading or external links, but the pages in question (formal organization and other one) don't seem particular neutral and also they appear idiosyncratic. -- Taku ( talk) 22:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose we move the history section to after "Nature". I think it is more logical to provide the reader with a good explanation of what the subject is before we talk about its history (which appears to basically be what the "Nature" section is). Also, this appears to generally be how articles are organized already, including today's featured article--π--which has a "Fundamentals" section before "History" and after the lede.
What do y'all think? Byelf2007 ( talk) 22 July 2012
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am editing some text [1] 119.226.77.150 ( talk) 08:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The introduction contains the following text:
"Other disparagers of Wikipedia simply point out vulnerabilities inherent to any wiki that may be edited by anyone. "
The word "disparager" seems biased and emotionally charged. The word "simply" implies diminution. The "inherent to any wiki that may be edited by anyone" part seems like an argument in favor of Wikipedia being made.
It just seems like the wording could be changed to sound more neutral.
129.59.115.14 ( talk) 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Section 3.1, Accuracy of Content:
"He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal..."
should be
"... from systemic biases, and novel results, in his opinion, are..."
although it would be even clearer to say
"... from systemic biases, and novel results are, in his opinion, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.9.8 ( talk) 17:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is on its way to becoming an FA article. As such, unless it is critical to the article, I am going to start purging all information that has no cites. The ones that are critical will need to be addressed once I am done with the purge. But I am not going to do this now. I will start doing this in 72 hours from this post. That is 6:30 GMT-5, on Tuesday, August 1st. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 22:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ever-wonder-where-wikipedias-info-comes-from-here-are-its-top-5-sources/ — A most interesting and intriguing graphic, content, and extensive researched list. — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Should it really be "Britannica replied that the study's methology and conclusions were flawed" I'm guessing it should methodology, not methology. I'm from the Midwest, and I watch Breaking Bad, so if I'm wrong here I can probably point you in the right direction anyway, but pretty sure I'm not. If Britannica really said "methology" then it'd be a pretty hilarous (and necessary) (sic), at the very least.
Yeah, your definitely right. There is no "methology" word in the English Language. It should really be changed to "methodology". -- 205.174.125.90 ( talk) 16:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the article lead has a short discussion on the criticisms levelled against wikipedia. I think this is the wrong place for it - it's unnecessary clutter in a very restricted space and I'd suggest it looks a bit defensive putting it right up there. So I think most of it should go in a new Criticisms section where it can be tidied and expanded a little, with just a short note left behind on policies. If nobody objects in the next day or so and I remember, I'll get on with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think it was a good idea to remove so much content from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, not just introduce it. There are now large parts of the article which are not summarized in the lead. I think that there certainly is room to improve the content which was deleted, but deleting it was not an improvement. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Since there is a subject already here, I may as well point out that we should open up a page called The trouble with Wikipedia... and all critiscisms in the talk page. I have already started creating it. If you have an objection go to my talk page. TollHRT52 ( talk) 13:27, 4 September 2012 (AEST)
The first paragraph under the heading "Dispute Resolution" could use a little bit of revision. In particular "... when a change is repeatedly done by one editor and then undone by another, an 'edit war' may be asserted to have begun by the editor who chooses to engage in that assertion" is beyond awkward. My natural inclination was to go for something like "... when a change is repeatedly done by one editor and then undone by another, an 'edit war' may be considered to have begun" but this is problematic because the assertion is referenced in the next sentence (which has it's own problems). I'm concerned that if I change too much I may mangle the intention because I'm not terribly familiar with the subject matter (most of my edits are minor). Perhaps someone with a bit more familiarity with the subject could take a crack at it. Olleicua ( talk) 07:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Could we get someone fluent in both English and Italian to look at the Italian article on Wikipedia to see if it could improve this one? If you do find something, could you put it in your user space as a rough translation? Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 17:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the word 'Wikipedia' should be italicized. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_face: "Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized." — John Biancato 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Further comments should probably go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#'Wikipedia' is not in italics. 71.212.250.193 ( talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The header "Arbitration" under Nature>>Rules and laws>>English Wikipedia is one header size smaller than it should be, a very small fix. -- Nitsuaeekcm ( talk) 01:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there a fork that covers the usage of wikipedia as a reference in legal ruling? Smallman12q ( talk) 20:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
but stuff happens, yolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.148.0.190 ( talk) 17:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
May I ask what are the superscript numbers in brackets They look like this: [22]
86.167.17.148 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) place t
I just talked to the italians. Their article for Wikipedia is not as good as this one, and there is no information that can be gathered, as we have thrice the size of theirs. So, I am taking that out of the checklist. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 15:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I want a review to see if Wikipedia meets the criterium for an A-Class article. This will allow us to see how far this article is from becoming a featured article once again. Since becoming a good article, this article has received many changes, many improvements. I think now is the time to upgrade the rating. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 02:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I liked Wikipedia very much. It helped me very much. It gave me lot of information. It helped me to do school projects. I sincerely thank Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.160.101 ( talk) 18:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It is important to note that all the information that is published is not true, there should be some form of control and be confident in the information published.
But there are also pages that verify this information and allows security.
Martha Mora. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
200.31.93.140 (
talk)
22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by this? All of the information that is published must meet Reliability Guidelines and must be cited. Information that is not cited is removed eventually, and before that is marked with a Citation Needed template. What more information do you need? Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 22:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
维基百科是一个非常糟糕的网站非常非常绝望的网站,维基百科给我错误的信息。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.182.236 ( talk) 05:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC) (Wikipedia is a very bad site is very, very desperate websites, Wikipedia gave me the wrong information. Translated from Chinese)
I'm doing research for Wikiquote, if anyone knows of interesting or pithy quotes about q:MediaWiki, please let me know at q:Talk:MediaWiki, it would be most appreciated! Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 17:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Can I just ask why is EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on Wikipedia AMERICANIZED!!! That every single movie has to feature dollars when their are currently only TWO countries that uses the dollar and that is America and Australia. Why does every single page have to feature AMERICAN sources only when someone features something from BBC news its removed yet when something is posted from CNN it's classed as fact and left on. This website is so biased towards American values and whatnot. Like every movie doesn't matter if its been made in Japan, Uk, France, Germany ect the first line on every single Movie that has an American studio attached to it has it stated as an American movie. Its BS. America isn't the only country in this DAMN WORLD!
Would there be any merit in including a screenshot of the Windows 8 app 'Wikipedia' published by Wikimedia? if so, see the attached file
NotinREALITY 04:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 56("Founder shares cautionary tale of libel in cyberspace By Brian J. Buchanan". Firstamendmentcenter.org. November 30, 2005. Retrieved July 13, 2010.) in section 1.3 Vandalism contains a dead link. I googled the article name and author and found that the article has been moved to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/founder-shares-cautionary-tale-of-libel-in-cyberspace. The current link should be removed and replaced. 69.116.218.170 ( talk) 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that this article should contain a section detailing the manner in which Wikipedia deals with attempts by corporations, by political activists, or by governments to present advertising, ideology, or propaganda within Wikipedia's articles, in writing that is disguised as Neutral Point of View.
For example, would it be possible for a government to infiltrate Wikipedia's editors, learn the system, and then serve as an opening wedge for a take-over of Wikipedia's senior editorship by incremental means? The most likely goal of such an attempt would be to control Wikipedia's content on issues which the government regards as politically sensitive, to ensure that its own side was portrayed sympathetically and that the other side(s) were portrayed, perhaps incorrectly, as aggressors or as evil-doers or as people who are so unreasonable that they might be regarded as "crazy."
How do Wikipedia's senior editors know that there isn't, among themselves, already someone who intends to make such an attempt at taking over the Wikipedia project on behalf of a government (or a corporation, or a political activist group, etc.)?
Or, for that matter, how can anyone else be certain that this has not already been accomplished? How can readers be sure that the "Neutral Point of View" isn't an illusion that would be difficult to perceive without direct experience with the article's subject?
173.87.162.84 ( talk) 10:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't we put a payment plan on Wikipedia so there wouldn't be many more vandalism, edit warring, blocking, and I always see advertisements of Wikipedia asking for donations. It is just an idea that i just thought of and feel free to discuss how you feel of this? Think about it, if we have a payment plan in Wikipedia, there wouldn't be so many negative or nonconstructive informations in the page because only people who are willing to pay to edit, would put useful information in the page. Furthermore, the Wikipedia page would receive money for its needs.--( Slurpy121 ( talk) 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC))
Please keep in mind that, per Wikipedia's talk page guideline, this page is to be used only for discussing how to improve the article about Wikipedia. Discussions of how to improve the Wikipedia website are inappropriate here. Thank you. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 06:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
In the New Users paragraph in this article, where it says "contributor is expected to build a user page", perhaps "user page" could be linked to Wikipedia:User pages -- Burnishe ( talk) 12:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
In this article, perhaps the New User paragraph could include a link to Wikipedia:Tutorial, (or a Wikipedia New User Welcome page, if there is one). I think the suggestion of "cultural rituals" might be a little bit intimidating to new users if it's not obvious how to become informed about them. -- Burnishe ( talk) 12:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence has incorrect wording and doesn't make sense in its current form:
This means that, with the exception of particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages that are "protected" from some degree of editing,
and should be reworded to
This means that, with the exception of particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages that are "protected" to some degree from editing,
121.45.193.118 ( talk) 13:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following punctuation error should be fixed, changing a comma to a full stop:
and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work,
to
and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work.
121.45.193.118 ( talk) 14:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
"When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, there may arise a systemic bias, such as non-opposite definitions for apparent antonyms. In 2011 Wales noted that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, which predominantly consists of young males with high education levels in the developed world (cf. above)[146] Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally, for example favouring certain ethnicities or majority religions.[185] It may more specifically follow the biases of Internet culture, inclining to being young, male, English speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases of its own may include over-emphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events."
MAJOR OMISSION: according to the cited source, 90% of wikipedia editors are white males. So naturally, the sentence should read: "... which predominantly consists of young white males with high education levels in the developed world... inclining to being young, white, male, English speaking, educated..."
Thanks.
Reference 92("Andrea Ciffolilli, "Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia," First Monday December 2003.") has a broken link. It should be replaced to http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1108/1028
Flebuz ( talk) 12:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
About this sentence:
I think this is too specific. The first paragraph isn't a place to go into detailed statistics. Article counts and number of language editors make sense, I suppose, but anything more is too specific. The paragraph already notes the rank of Wikipedia; that's enough to establish that Wikipedia is a popular website. Not to mention US traffic is US-centric. Why US? Not British? -- Taku ( talk) 14:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, but does anybody know how I can search for images on Wikipedia. Is there any search bar where I can search for pictures? Peta8 ( talk) 17:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia identifies every person and organization by nationality. This article should say that Wikipedia is American. (Of course that's obvious to non-American readers). Fourtildas ( talk) 06:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Does editing talk pages make one an editor? I mainly stick to Talk Pages because the main pages don't allow me to be individualistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.202.28 ( talk) 12:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thread is unrelated to the topic of this page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sedition or Subsidy.Many of the pages in relation to current affairs fall under the heading of ´ sedition or subsidy´ which is a propagandist trick or treat civil society & corporate halloween con. Note that halloween was orginally spelled holloween, of two words, hollow & wean, implying an empty feeding. You should definitely seperate those pages from other pages due the stigmata associated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 ( talk) 14:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The article only makes references to MySQL as the database used by MediaWiki, while the entry for MariaDB states that Wikipedia is using MariaDB, (they use this reference), so apparently Wikipedia is not fully migrated to MariaDB but it would be soon. I feel that this article should reflect that, either specify that MySQL is on the way out, or that MariaDB is the current DB. I could try to make some changes by my self but they would probably be reverted seconds later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.156.144 ( talk) 10:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thread is unrelated to the topic of this page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
-- Non wikipedia- wikis! -- Thanks to wikipedia, lots of other wikis, mostly fan sites, have been created! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.145.218 ( talk) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|
I recently italicized the title of this article and cited other works, the titles of which are also italicized. I feel that to not italicize the title of this great work may very well be degratory. Before anyone reverts my edit again, please explain to me how you are not degrading Wikipedia by deitalicizing it's title. Thank you for your consideration. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 06:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
In Cold Blood is more than just a book. To say that Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia does not negate the fact that it is an encyclopedia, the title of which should be italicized in accordance with the MOS. There must be very good reason to go against that guideline. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 07:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
...it seems to me that the standard convention is to put the titles of online encyclopedia in normal fonts; not just here but everywhere on the Internet.
I've been told that my edit summary was unstylish in two ways. To be clear, I did not call my fellow contributor, TakuyaMurata, a vandal nor his reverts vandalism. I stated that his reverts bordered on the "v" word. As for my uppercase "shouts", the software leaves little choice in editsummaries when it comes to emphasis. If I'd had my druthers I would have used italics or bold, but neither of those work in edit summaries. I was shooting for emphasis, as in community consensus, that's all. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Forgive, but your arguments above have so many disagreements with themselves, I wouldn't know where to begin.
Ignore long-earned community consensus just to maintain the status quo?
As I said, I wouldn't know where to begin.
I can only say that we do not hesitate to italicize the titles of articles that, by our Manual of Style and by global convention, should be italicized.
If the title is a book, like Man's Search for Meaning, then we italicize it. Collections, such as the poems in Leaves of Grass are italicized. Reference works such as the Britannica, italicized. These are italicized in line with global convention and our MoS.
I would wager – and win – that if somebody were to write a book about Wikipedia – wait... it's already been done – we do not hesitate to italicize Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, a book about Wikipedia.
This article, by its own admission in the hatnote, is about the encyclopedia.
Anything in this article that elaborates too much on Wikipedia items that are not about the encyclopedia should be split out into their own article or into existing articles. Those items that are not about the encyclopedia, that are about the Wikipedia (project) or Wikipedia (Community), should not be italicized.
By global convention and our own MoS this article's title and every instance of "Wikipedia" in it that refers to " Wikipedia the encyclopedia" should be italicized.
has never been in italics. It's not gonna be in italics now." — Janus Savimbi.
Indeed. And if there were such consensus regarding the title "Wikipedia", that's exactly what we'd do.
We should remove information concerning the site's method of operation and place it in separate articles? Why?
Please cite evidence...
I see the article on Wikipedia the encyclopedia and I slap on the template. But am I on my way? No. I find myself in an edit war with another contributor who is probably one of this article's stewards who feels that his lofty standards are above and better than the standard from the MoS
the convention that was worked on by several editors who, after many hours of research and discussion, came to the consensus that the Wikipedia project should italicize the titles of online encyclopedias.
I come out of my shell and discuss it with him, because that's the right thing to do. Other stewards chime in
who feel that rather than go by that hard-earned consensus, all that research, this article "has never been in italics. It's not gonna be in italics now." — Janus Savimbi.
There is just such a consensus,
the one that resulted in the addition to the MoS that specifies that online encyclopedias should be italicized,
Not all wikis are reference works like Wikipedia, so they shouldn't be italicized.
As I said, Anything in this article that elaborates too much on Wikipedia items that are not about the encyclopedia..., which I thought was quite clear.
This article is about the encyclopedia, after all.
Already done. It's in the archives of the MoS talk page that's been cited in this discussion. All the research by editors who want to hone and sharpen the MoS to make it fit with global standards. The long discussion, back and forth until community consensus was reached. It's all there.
To me, it is the height of arrogance and ego to want to change all that hard work, and why?
This article's stewards don't want their article title italicized.
Right, anyone who disagrees with you is a "steward" engaging in ownership.
And I stand by that, but I never said anything about them owning the article. I've come up against article ownership on a few occasions, and that's a far cry from what I've been up against here. These are good contributors whom, I feel, are way too overprotective and close to this article.
What's the big deal? It's the article about Wikipedia the reference work.
And it is decidedly arrogant and egotistical to feel that this article is an "exception" to the rule. That word "exception" is nothing but POV puff'nstuff.
Moving on.
In my humble estimation, you, David, as shown by the above accusation on your part, have excessively overreacted to my statements.
But they are Wikipedia articles.
I've read the entire MoS page you linked and don't see anything in it that addresses (even peripherally or by implication) typographical matters in self-references.
Consider also that we don't just write encyclopedia articles; we also write content in project space—a lot of it—and this discussion has a bearing on self-references there as well.