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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This article has only been written by members of "Wikipedia". -- SPUI ( talk) 14:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Dont know how to talk back to that guy, but told him what was up, dont know if he seen it on my warning page or now
I have just been browsing this article and discovered a problem with the end-note reference links. Reference 19 links correctly to its note, but reference 20 links to note 26. It seems that all of the subsequent references link to the incorrect notes as well. Why would this happen, and how can it be fixed?
Allegedly, "Wikipedia.org alone gets 800 million hits a day, making it one of the top 50 websites in the world." (according to [1]) Are these number accurate? If not, why is it still found on wikimediafoundation.org? If so, why was it removed from this article, as I recall seeing the reference to "800 million hits" in an earlier version. Shawnc 19:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The page lacks something about the origin of the name "wikipedia", does it really come from "wiki" and greek "paideia" ?
I was unclear on your previous answer. Did "wikipedia" really come from "wiki" and the greek "paideia"? 70.70.212.72
Am I imagining things, or is the Wikipedia "sphere" logo image in the article somewhat flatter than the actual logo (which can be seen at all times in the upper left corner)? Someone confirm or deny this, please; it's driving me crazy. :) -- Ashenai 11:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
These are both an important part of Wikipedia. Shouldn't they deserve a mention? - 211.30.179.151 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Curious as to what year Wikipedia is claimed to be founded? Thanks Scott 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Why is the quote by Robert McHenry started with "[h]owever"? I've never come across there being a problem with quoting full-sentence prose beginning with a capital letter before. -- BigBlueFish 09:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless there are objections, I am going to add that Wikipedia is pronounced "wee-kee-peedia" because of the pronounciation of Wiki.
I agree with Matt. I was pronouncing it with the pedia e like egg till it was pointed out by my brother that that was wrong, but I have never heard of any pronunciation of wiki that doesn't rhyme with sticky. My pedia problenm was because I was thinking of the Spanish (living in Honduras), and weekee sounds equally Spanish, SqueakBox 19:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The very person that came up with Wikis said that the preferred pronunciation is "wee-kee" (see the Wiki article and the link in it), so the "wee-kee-pedia" pronunciation is not wrong, as some people above say. But the same page also says that "wik-ee" is an equally acceptable pronunciation. Eternalbeans 21:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You shouldn't set your pronunciation based on the pronunciation of another word. Consider omni, when one says it by itself, it might be om-ni (om-nee) or om-naɪ (om-ny), but when added to words like omniscient and omnipotent, it is not pronounced om-naɪ-po-tent, but usually om-nɪ-po-tent. I say wick-ey, but say wɪ-kɪ-peedia. Besides, it is near impossible to establish pronunciation for a word with such little history or awareness.
I have added a new prononciation, wi-ki-pedia (wɪ-kɪ). At Harvard, everyone calls it by this name, and I think it deserves recognition.... it is the easiest way too pronounce it, anyways. And as Matt Crypto said above, this is a common prononciation all over.
I made some changes to the introduction that made it stay more "on point". My changes were based on:
Some anonymous IP blindly reverted my work calling it "oddity", but I think they were out of line in doing that. My edits were very obviously in earnest, and if someone didn't at least note that I hyperlinked neutral point of view and keep that then they probably didn't read it well enough to revert. Metaeducation 15:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Either that or this wins several WTF awards:
http://search.ebay.com//search/search.dll?from=R40&satitle=wikipedia
Wikipedia is multilingual, but it isn't translingual. Why not? My user account doesn't cross over to other languages, and articles don't seem to be cross-linked across languages. I think it would add a lot to Wikipedia to have multilungual editors making links like this. I'd like to make a few myself.
Also, I'm interested in contributing by editing down entries so that they contain virtually the same meaning with fewer words. If someone can point me at an article that needs this kind of work done, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
As of October 17, 2005, Wikipedia scored 181M google hits! (unsigned comment from anon)
Where can I find a complete list of projects that where started by those who founded Wikipedia?
"Those who founded Wikipedia" means Bomis, an Internet company from which Wikimedia was spun off in June 2003. To see which of of the current Wikimedia projects were started by Bomis, go to Wikipedia:List of largest wikis.
If you wanna know about Wikimedia projects in general, and not just those founded by Bomis, go to that same page ( List of largest wikis) and check the hyperlinks in the last section of the page.
Yes, very funny. If you have the concerns that you chose to publish on this page, please quote evidence to back up those concerns - so that a consensus can be reached on the way this should be phrased. Otherwise, that is POV and is not allowed. Ian Cairns 13:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there will ever be a print version of Wikipedia? I mean, will this ever be put into print? -- Wikipedian2005 05:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It'd be nice, but it would be obselete 4 seconds after it came out of the printer. -Anonymous User (No Account)
Where it says:
Wouldn't admin versus non-admin be a formal distinction? -- rob 15:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Why should we care about mirrors? I think this article should be best (and most current), and if it makes some mirrors strange - well, tough luck. Besides, what are those ad-full sites good for, anyway? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I pronounce it [ˌwɪkɪˈpidi.ə]. Does anyone else? Ingoolemo talk 08:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
no, no definately not
Almost every time I visit this page it has been defaced. It needs to be locked. The article probably has all the infomation it will get. -- 2005-11-07 08:29:23 193.62.42.27
I strongly disagree. Even if it means that I have to revert all the vandalism on this page myself, i believe that the very last thing we should do is lock the article on "wikipedia" -- the very spirit of the encyclopedia is that every article is editable, and if we lock the article about the encyclopedia itself then we're sending a pretty mixed signal. TastemyHouse 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Even though a library is public, that doesn't mean that everyone gets to check out all the items. Just as "reference" items must always be available (and therefore not allowed out of the library), it could be said that certain articles should always have only good information. Furthermore, there is already precidence for this as some (many?) Wikipedia policy (and other) articles are indeed locked. Grika Ⓣ 19:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I refer to this quote from Jimbo's "statement of principles page" "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred - even to the extent that this page itself can be changed. <--- this is from an old revision of the page. Everything after "We must respect this principle as sacred" was removed by a user.. and not reverted TastemyHouse 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Another possible solution to this problem might be semi-protection in the future. Then again, it is the article on Wikipedia. We wouldn't want to lose the wiki-spirit on this page! -- TantalumTelluride 18:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Why lock pages? Lock people. If an article is defaced, click a report button that shows the versions of that article. Click the one where the defacement got there. That change is then investigated by MediaWiki employees. They add a notice to a record, or if it has two marks already they are banned. -Anonymous User (No Account) PS: This is harsh, I know. I had to write this quickly. Suggestions?
This comment goes somewhere in this article, I just cant decide where... ideas? -- Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is falling apart by the SQL. -- 69.128.154.57 06:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
well?
Pece Kocovski 06:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a request for all the venerable Wikipedia historians out there. I'm interested in the origin and originator of the now ubiquitous phrase "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Of course, the words "Wikipedia", "free" and "encyclopedia" have been used together in one sentence from times imemmorial, but I'm interested in the precise phrase with its charming double hyperbole (pretending that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which it most certainly wasn't during those early days, and pretending that it is the only free one). Archive.org shows that the phrase was inserted as the title of the main page between 26 Oct and 31 Oct 2001 when it replaced the somewhat uninspiring "HomePage". AxelBoldt 19:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
no idea as to the answer of your question, but you sound a bit sarcastic, which might've driven people off from answering your question. Sorry if you didn't intend that tone. seemes like you might want to ask the question in other places, too, the Village Pump or maybe at the help desk? TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought it would be useful to link to Wikipedia:Wikipedians in the Wikipedia article, but I learned "(→Free-content - rm link to Wikipedians - this is a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedians and AIUI links from the article space to project space are against MoS)".
After using List of Internet slang & Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend to understand where I messed up, I searched Wikipedia for guidance, but couldn't find any answers (e.g., at Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), *here*([[Talk:Wikipedia]]), & Wikipedia:Project_namespace).
So, 4 questions:
Thanks (for ANY comments/etc., including RE:my style/markup).
-- Curious1i 07:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Given today's history of this article, would it not be best to lock it? Jon Harald Søby \ no na 20:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Probably but that will be againist Wikipedia's philosophy!!! Wikipedia has always had a problem with vandalism, because anyone(anyone with an network connection)can post. But it'll be edited out, don't worry. Though anyone can just vandalize it again, Because anyone can post anything!!!!
Anyone Anything 29-Nov-05 4:53 PM
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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This article has only been written by members of "Wikipedia". -- SPUI ( talk) 14:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Dont know how to talk back to that guy, but told him what was up, dont know if he seen it on my warning page or now
I have just been browsing this article and discovered a problem with the end-note reference links. Reference 19 links correctly to its note, but reference 20 links to note 26. It seems that all of the subsequent references link to the incorrect notes as well. Why would this happen, and how can it be fixed?
Allegedly, "Wikipedia.org alone gets 800 million hits a day, making it one of the top 50 websites in the world." (according to [1]) Are these number accurate? If not, why is it still found on wikimediafoundation.org? If so, why was it removed from this article, as I recall seeing the reference to "800 million hits" in an earlier version. Shawnc 19:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The page lacks something about the origin of the name "wikipedia", does it really come from "wiki" and greek "paideia" ?
I was unclear on your previous answer. Did "wikipedia" really come from "wiki" and the greek "paideia"? 70.70.212.72
Am I imagining things, or is the Wikipedia "sphere" logo image in the article somewhat flatter than the actual logo (which can be seen at all times in the upper left corner)? Someone confirm or deny this, please; it's driving me crazy. :) -- Ashenai 11:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
These are both an important part of Wikipedia. Shouldn't they deserve a mention? - 211.30.179.151 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Curious as to what year Wikipedia is claimed to be founded? Thanks Scott 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Why is the quote by Robert McHenry started with "[h]owever"? I've never come across there being a problem with quoting full-sentence prose beginning with a capital letter before. -- BigBlueFish 09:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless there are objections, I am going to add that Wikipedia is pronounced "wee-kee-peedia" because of the pronounciation of Wiki.
I agree with Matt. I was pronouncing it with the pedia e like egg till it was pointed out by my brother that that was wrong, but I have never heard of any pronunciation of wiki that doesn't rhyme with sticky. My pedia problenm was because I was thinking of the Spanish (living in Honduras), and weekee sounds equally Spanish, SqueakBox 19:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The very person that came up with Wikis said that the preferred pronunciation is "wee-kee" (see the Wiki article and the link in it), so the "wee-kee-pedia" pronunciation is not wrong, as some people above say. But the same page also says that "wik-ee" is an equally acceptable pronunciation. Eternalbeans 21:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You shouldn't set your pronunciation based on the pronunciation of another word. Consider omni, when one says it by itself, it might be om-ni (om-nee) or om-naɪ (om-ny), but when added to words like omniscient and omnipotent, it is not pronounced om-naɪ-po-tent, but usually om-nɪ-po-tent. I say wick-ey, but say wɪ-kɪ-peedia. Besides, it is near impossible to establish pronunciation for a word with such little history or awareness.
I have added a new prononciation, wi-ki-pedia (wɪ-kɪ). At Harvard, everyone calls it by this name, and I think it deserves recognition.... it is the easiest way too pronounce it, anyways. And as Matt Crypto said above, this is a common prononciation all over.
I made some changes to the introduction that made it stay more "on point". My changes were based on:
Some anonymous IP blindly reverted my work calling it "oddity", but I think they were out of line in doing that. My edits were very obviously in earnest, and if someone didn't at least note that I hyperlinked neutral point of view and keep that then they probably didn't read it well enough to revert. Metaeducation 15:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Either that or this wins several WTF awards:
http://search.ebay.com//search/search.dll?from=R40&satitle=wikipedia
Wikipedia is multilingual, but it isn't translingual. Why not? My user account doesn't cross over to other languages, and articles don't seem to be cross-linked across languages. I think it would add a lot to Wikipedia to have multilungual editors making links like this. I'd like to make a few myself.
Also, I'm interested in contributing by editing down entries so that they contain virtually the same meaning with fewer words. If someone can point me at an article that needs this kind of work done, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
As of October 17, 2005, Wikipedia scored 181M google hits! (unsigned comment from anon)
Where can I find a complete list of projects that where started by those who founded Wikipedia?
"Those who founded Wikipedia" means Bomis, an Internet company from which Wikimedia was spun off in June 2003. To see which of of the current Wikimedia projects were started by Bomis, go to Wikipedia:List of largest wikis.
If you wanna know about Wikimedia projects in general, and not just those founded by Bomis, go to that same page ( List of largest wikis) and check the hyperlinks in the last section of the page.
Yes, very funny. If you have the concerns that you chose to publish on this page, please quote evidence to back up those concerns - so that a consensus can be reached on the way this should be phrased. Otherwise, that is POV and is not allowed. Ian Cairns 13:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there will ever be a print version of Wikipedia? I mean, will this ever be put into print? -- Wikipedian2005 05:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It'd be nice, but it would be obselete 4 seconds after it came out of the printer. -Anonymous User (No Account)
Where it says:
Wouldn't admin versus non-admin be a formal distinction? -- rob 15:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Why should we care about mirrors? I think this article should be best (and most current), and if it makes some mirrors strange - well, tough luck. Besides, what are those ad-full sites good for, anyway? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I pronounce it [ˌwɪkɪˈpidi.ə]. Does anyone else? Ingoolemo talk 08:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
no, no definately not
Almost every time I visit this page it has been defaced. It needs to be locked. The article probably has all the infomation it will get. -- 2005-11-07 08:29:23 193.62.42.27
I strongly disagree. Even if it means that I have to revert all the vandalism on this page myself, i believe that the very last thing we should do is lock the article on "wikipedia" -- the very spirit of the encyclopedia is that every article is editable, and if we lock the article about the encyclopedia itself then we're sending a pretty mixed signal. TastemyHouse 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Even though a library is public, that doesn't mean that everyone gets to check out all the items. Just as "reference" items must always be available (and therefore not allowed out of the library), it could be said that certain articles should always have only good information. Furthermore, there is already precidence for this as some (many?) Wikipedia policy (and other) articles are indeed locked. Grika Ⓣ 19:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I refer to this quote from Jimbo's "statement of principles page" "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred - even to the extent that this page itself can be changed. <--- this is from an old revision of the page. Everything after "We must respect this principle as sacred" was removed by a user.. and not reverted TastemyHouse 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Another possible solution to this problem might be semi-protection in the future. Then again, it is the article on Wikipedia. We wouldn't want to lose the wiki-spirit on this page! -- TantalumTelluride 18:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Why lock pages? Lock people. If an article is defaced, click a report button that shows the versions of that article. Click the one where the defacement got there. That change is then investigated by MediaWiki employees. They add a notice to a record, or if it has two marks already they are banned. -Anonymous User (No Account) PS: This is harsh, I know. I had to write this quickly. Suggestions?
This comment goes somewhere in this article, I just cant decide where... ideas? -- Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is falling apart by the SQL. -- 69.128.154.57 06:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
well?
Pece Kocovski 06:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a request for all the venerable Wikipedia historians out there. I'm interested in the origin and originator of the now ubiquitous phrase "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Of course, the words "Wikipedia", "free" and "encyclopedia" have been used together in one sentence from times imemmorial, but I'm interested in the precise phrase with its charming double hyperbole (pretending that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which it most certainly wasn't during those early days, and pretending that it is the only free one). Archive.org shows that the phrase was inserted as the title of the main page between 26 Oct and 31 Oct 2001 when it replaced the somewhat uninspiring "HomePage". AxelBoldt 19:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
no idea as to the answer of your question, but you sound a bit sarcastic, which might've driven people off from answering your question. Sorry if you didn't intend that tone. seemes like you might want to ask the question in other places, too, the Village Pump or maybe at the help desk? TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought it would be useful to link to Wikipedia:Wikipedians in the Wikipedia article, but I learned "(→Free-content - rm link to Wikipedians - this is a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedians and AIUI links from the article space to project space are against MoS)".
After using List of Internet slang & Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend to understand where I messed up, I searched Wikipedia for guidance, but couldn't find any answers (e.g., at Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), *here*([[Talk:Wikipedia]]), & Wikipedia:Project_namespace).
So, 4 questions:
Thanks (for ANY comments/etc., including RE:my style/markup).
-- Curious1i 07:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Given today's history of this article, would it not be best to lock it? Jon Harald Søby \ no na 20:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Probably but that will be againist Wikipedia's philosophy!!! Wikipedia has always had a problem with vandalism, because anyone(anyone with an network connection)can post. But it'll be edited out, don't worry. Though anyone can just vandalize it again, Because anyone can post anything!!!!
Anyone Anything 29-Nov-05 4:53 PM