This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
Please forgive my ignorance, but can anyone with more background on this explain why Brian Peppers is protected against re-creation? Sarah Lynne Nashif ( talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Are signature books allowed? Do people like them? Are they useless? Do people get annoyed by them? SwirlBoy 39 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The little blurb below the Google result for the entire of wikipedia reads:
The biggest multilingual free-content encyclopedia on the Internet. Over 7 million articles in over 200 languages, and still growing.
How can this be updated to be correct (wikipedia now has over 10 million articles)? I know it can be done. -Icewedge ( talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody ! I was searching on the web information about "Print Servers" and I found these two pages :
Both texts are identical (except the second one has less formating). I didn't find any license information on networkdictionary.
I'm not sure who copied who, can anybody have a look ? Thanks. -- Escherichia coli ( talk) 11:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC) (if I am not on the correct page for that, let me know)
Hello Wikipedians! Please consider taking a few moments to respond to my research study on the past/present/future of Wikipedia. My thesis is based on Jimmy Wales' assertion that Wikipedia is a work in progress which continues to improve. I am comparing this statement to the theory that Wikipedia is a utopian idea that is bound to fail in the long run. I would be very grateful if you would visit my User page for more details. And please, spread the word. Many thanks. - AMQ815( talk) AMQ815 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to share this with you: There was a very good documentary on dutch television recently called "Wiki's Truth" (orig. Wiki's Waarheid) in which the pros and cons of Wikipedia as well as other Web 2.0 websites are discussed by Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, Andrew Keen (writer), Charles Leadbeater (writer) and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica). It's a dutch documentary, but in fact only the voice-over is in dutch, so all of the very interesting interviews, etc. are in English. If you want to watch it press this link (this will start the video right away). Free style 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's starting to be my experience that I can barely go to an article without there being some tag on it, like neutrality, references, etc., and often there are many tags on one article. This clutter bothers me as a user since it reminds me of that often seen parody of news channels like MSNBC, CNN, etc., where you can barely see the newsreaders because of all the banner graphics. Part of it could be due to the dual nature of Wikipedia; the tags are not so bad when read as an editor, but annoying when read as a user, although the argument can be made that they alert the user to any possible deficiencies in the article. But the user is likely to come away skeptical that anything in Wikipedia is up to standards. Any ideas? I should say that while I enjoy the collaborative aspects of these tags, since engaging in discussion before making changes is good, I am often left with a bad taste thinking, whether rightly or wrongly, that the tag applying editors are just lazy and critical. I picture them zipping though Wikipedia applying their critiques, instead of just fixing the problem. Just my impression. Spalding ( talk) 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a very similar problem: The articles I am thinking of were not created by myself, and I (because of my academic background that emphasizes appropriate citations and referencing) and others know that they are in great need of being improved. However, in one case I have tried to edit in the past: Smallthorne, every sentence in some sections have just been tagged with the "citation needed" tag, and in another article I have edited: Great Sankey, the same editor yesterday added a swathe of citation needed and "original research" tags whilst I was editing at one point (I had forgot to add the "inuse" template) to material I hadn't edited. Finally, the editor changed the name of one section and asked for it to be expanded to fit the greater scope it then had after the name change. Now, I have absolutely no quibble with the fact that the article was poorly referenced and needs improving, but the speed and extent to which the tags are added is disheartening to editors who currently are trying to improve them, and I think an alternative means of notifying deficiencies (say by a message on the talk page) would suffice (and, indeed, on Great Sankey there is such a message.) This particular editor is unlikely, given the actions on Great Sankey, to ignore just a simple removal of the tags. It is easy to add these tags, but it is time-consuming to fulfil the requests they place on interested editors, and I suggest that the people who excessively tag articles that have not been formally put forward for assessment for Grade B, Grade A GA or FA status might be better served by being less enthusiastic in tagging and more enthusiastic in finding the appropriate references themselves! DDStretch (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In another forum I have seen that 15,000 WP:Notability tags have been added in just the past 10 months. With tags having dates it is inevitable that sooner or later the backlog will cause articles to die without ever having been reviewed. In short, the flood of tags has altered the practical definition of waiting a reasonable amount of time. To that end I think it is time that we closed the floodgates to new tags until the backlog is cleaned up. This will not of course in any way prevent AfD related activities, with the proviso that age of existing tags needs to be a non-valid reason for deletion. See also a related discussion on this matter at the Village Pump [1]. Low Sea 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
After reflection it seems to me the core problem is that it is easier to take away from than to add to WP. Far too many editors are "improving" WP by taking away and not adding back. To that end perhaps an automated counter could be implemented that tracks activities that remove content and activities that add content and would block editors from being excessive on the former. Adding tags that could trigger deletion (needs cite, unsourced, AfD, etc) would be considered reductions, and adding article text, citations, etc would be considered additions. I think perhaps an 80/20 rule would be good (for every 8 reductions you must provide 2 additions). Again, this idea needs work but what do you think in general? Low Sea 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I am open to any crazy ideas on how we "motivate" editors to be more than taggers? Right now that is the easiest (Dare I say "laziest"? No, I won't say that.) way to contribute but in and of itself is not actually constructive, only critical. I'll start with one below but please let's brainstorm this. Low Sea 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Large articles are an inconvenience to dial-up users.
But this may be a " miner's canary" effect.
I complained on the talk page for the Earth article about the size of that page. In creating the table at the end of that discussion, it became apparent that the problem is much more widespread.
Articles that try to be all things to all people probably duplicate the efforts in other pages which are more focused in scope. This means that the effort of knowledgeable editors may be wasted by diffusion (editing multiple pages) or obscurity (some other Wikipedia article ranks higher in a search engine).
Articles that try to touch on every conceivable aspect of a topic create a haystack of information. Visitors are being inconvenienced by being forced to sift through a haystack to find a needle. The visitor sought a needle via a search engine. Wikipedia might give them a haystack: a page containing more than they ever wanted to know about the subject.
Visitors who want to print out an article may generate several pages of waste paper around the topic that was of interest to them. This is bad for the environment.
I will hesitate to put an article on my watch list if it tries to cover too many aspects of a topic. Only the last change appears in a watch list. If fifty-eleven topics are being addressed by the article, it is most likely that any alert on my watch list is going to be about something other than my narrow interest the topic. So why watch it?
Just because we can, doesn't mean that we must. Bits are cheap. We can put lots of them in one page.
Improvements in hardware have led to all manner of sloppiness in procedures and software. Things have "progressed" to the point where it now takes a ridiculously powerful machine to write a memo using a popular word processor. Ideally, machines are left to sort out the sloppiness in a way that is transparent to the user.
But the human mechanism for sifting data has not kept pace with advances in computer hardware. Huge pages are nice repositories of information (which is a function of books), but they are less effective as accessible tools (which is a function of an encyclopedia article). - Ac44ck ( talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
schulz@michelangelo 1:37am [~] links -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth | head -1097|wc 1097 7956 58021
WP:SIZE is quite well-enforced. What few pages we have that are more than 100KB in size are almost all lists, and the rest are aggressively de-bloated on a regular basis. I don't think it's reasonable to insist that we should only have, say, a 4-page article on a subject as broad and important as Earth. There's a balance between having a comprehensive-but-not-excessively-detailed article on such broad subjects, versus turning overview articles into little more than indexes for other pages. If I read an article on Earth, I expect to learn a little bit about everything. Four paragraphs on each of the most important subtopics is hardly excessive.
Frankly, I think we get the balance just right, and your complaint surprises me.-- Father Goose ( talk) 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Who the FRAK posted the identity of the final cylon?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.157.45 ( talk) 10:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding this here because I can think of nowhere else to put it - it's more a philosophical question.
If something bad happens in a school/commercial institution/government body etc. and is reported in the news - should it be added to the page of the entity. I ask this as I am currently weighing up a revert I have done to a page which a user has re-reverted. I'm not sure I'm right (you can find this here, but I'd like some thoughts on the general issue).
The case in hand is a school where a teacher was arrested for "fondling" a student. If the matter is not of national/international fame is it to be considered trivia, and the velleity to add it suppressed because of it's harmful nature? BananaFiend ( talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If something appears in the news, it should be posted at Wikinews. Why we never instituted a 1 month blackout on wiki*pedia* I will never know. ;-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 10:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, what's all this talk about a liberal bias on Wikipedia? Where did it come from, and what articles were used in the argument?-- Montaced ( talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Lately it feels like newsletters are getting really out of hand with Wikiprojects. Every Wikiproject appears to have one, and they're being released as frequently as three-four different days a week (that's not really the norm, but it is occurring with particular projects). There are a bunch of bot approval requests for newsletter delivery bots as well. But is this all necessary? Big Wikiprojects have a lot to report, so newsletter aren't that bad with those projects. The offending Wikiprojects appear to be with projects that don't do anything as a project and don't really need a newsletter.
I've left this vague rather than giving specific projects or users, but I can provide that if others would like to see examples. While I believe that this is mostly a decision that each Wikiproject needs to decide, should Wikipedia as a whole have any say on these. I have concerns that certain users are forgetting the points of Wikiprojects and newsletters and are spending their resources on the newsletters rather than actually working on the articles that the Wikproject is intended to improve. Metros ( talk) 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced question, moved to Reference desk. Gwinva ( talk) 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
HI, I don't know where else to post this, so please move if necessary. I created an article and, after a little while, found Wikipedia:Requests for feedback was the correct place to ask for ideas about improving it, so I did so. But, on looking, it becomes evident that hardly any editors (3 or 4?) have added any feedback to any of the numerous requests in the last month. It is a disappointingly low-traffic page. It seems to me that this page ought to have a higher profile, because the people who post there (me, for example) are positively trying to improve Wikipedia, and lack of response is disheartening. So, my question is, what is the best way to encourage more editors with experience to contribute to WP:RFF? Thanks for any help you can offer. BusinessAsUnusual ( talk) 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Blog is live. NonvocalScream ( talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
All this week, I have been thinking of one thing: wouldn't it be cool to have one, large,hardcover, bound copy of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, with every article on Wikipedia in it? Of course, Wikipedia is ever-changing. But, what if we create a WikiProject or Committee that goes through, and makes the articles at least good enough for a hard copy encyclopedia? It's a good idea, and I would LOVE feedback on it. I hope it's positive feedback, because it's best if you Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. ( talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
While researching a biography article I came across this paper on the use of wikis by undergraduates. Not specifically about Wikipedia, but it may be of interest. Wasn't sure where to post the link, so I thought that here is as good as anywhere. The paper is at [2]. DuncanHill ( talk) 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it encyclopedic to have lists of nonstop flights for each airport? Do such lists exist, either in wikipedia or not? Morecromulent ( talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Checking Category:Mammals of North America, Category:Mammals of Canada and Category:Mammals of the United States, the sorting is inconsistent: Either by leading word or last word. Which way is the correct one? -- KnightMove ( talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No... they are not. -- KnightMove ( talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Today, I went into my office in Tokyo, feeling somewhat grumpy and crappy because I've been off sick for the last couple of days with the flu (or something flu-like). Being Casual Friday, one of my Canadian co-workers was wearing a typical decorative Japanese t-shirt, the type with the chunk of English text on it 'cause it looks cool. This t-shirt, however, unlike pretty much every other one I've seen before, had its English text not in " Engrish", but in perfectly coherent, understandable, and even informative English. Pretty unusual for a Japanese t-shirt maker to pay attention to such details, I thought -- and then I had a hunch.
I'm sure you see where this is going: I went to the computer, looked up " Guitar" on Wikipedia, lo, right there in this section was essentially the text in question. Proof:
When I pointed this out to my co-worker, he lamented that Wikipedia may mean the death of "Engrish". Hey, Wikipedia IS doing some good. It made my day. -- Calton | Talk 14:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
They don't cite Wikipedia on it, though. I think that violates GFLD; time to sue! -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A new essay. Durova Charge! 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed an overhaul of Template:FreeContentMeta, based on an idea proposed at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis by User:Ned Scott. This template has been through a few TfDs, so I am posting here to have a wider input on the proposed changes. Please leave comments at Template talk:FreeContentMeta#Proposed overhaul. Thanks, -- Phirazo 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(Copy/pasted from
Template talk:FreeContentMeta)
I am proposing to change this template to an inline style that better serves the purpose of promoting free content. I've never liked the current style of this template, which seems a little too much like a web ad. The style I am proposing looks like this:
As opposed to the current style, seen at the right:
I think that the style I am proposing much more clearly indicates the linked content is free, and thus better promotes free content, while not looking like a web ad. It also avoids issues with logo copyrights, since many fandom wikis simply use the title card of the TV show they cover, and other free content wikis have their logos trademarked and copyrighted. -- Phirazo 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I want to first of all appreciate the efforts of the Volunteers who have kept Wikipedia Encyclopaedia running. The service is very useful and apt.
However, I have just observed in the content and discussion on Transport Geography, the omission of Pipeline as a mode/means of transportation. I do not intend to blame anyone for this omission because it is common in literature to overlook the critical role of Pipeline Transportation especially in the conveyance of oil and gas from oilfields to refineries and from refineries to final destination either for consumption or export purposes. Therefore, I do wish to advocate that pipeline should be added as a mode/means of transportation.
Overcoming spatial disparity in the location of oil and gas resources, all over the world, is usually done through pipelines. In the US for instance, there about 1.9 miles of pipeline right-of-way transporting gas and oil, from within and outside the country. Likewise in Nigeria, there is close to 8,000km length of pipeline (offshore and onshore) transporting oil and gas across board. I do hope my humble submission is considered and accepted.
Thanks for the anticipated understanding and cooperation.
Best wishes,
Babatunde Anifowose Doctoral Researcher Email: removed
I want to start a discussion on something I noticed recently on Wikipedia that often takes place during arguments, the comparison of edit counts or mainspace edits. I recently was reading through a long thread regarding an editor, and while not the only argument, an argument was made that one editor had been here longer and had more mainspace edits.
What surprised me was the argument was made in full view of numerous admins and no one discounted or countered the argument. My reason for posting is a clarification, and some questions regarding this practice.
If you have seen two editors compared solely on edit count, or seen an editor given a pass based on their edit count, how do you argue against it, or do you agree with it?
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this post. -- I Write Stuff ( talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Naw, your worth around here is a much more complex formula, including not only your edit count, mainspace edits, and length of time here, but also who your friends and enemies are, what cliques you're allied with or opposed to, what favors you owe or are due, whose shoes you've trampled on, whether your opinions on pressing issues are politically correct, how many points you've gained or lost by pleasing or pissing off the wrong people, and more. *Dan T.* ( talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to disagree with BanyanTree's implication that low mainspace edits means a less useful editor. My mainspace editcount is fairly low compared to my talkspace, but that does not mean that I am here chatting with my friends. It mean that I have spent a lot of time tagging articles for wikiprojects and assessing them. This, I would argue, is very important for WP:1.0 and the long-term goals of the project. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the page I linked in the first place. So this discussion is, essentially, beating the dead horse, and this post is just repeating myself, but anyway. First of all, the answer to the title of the section is dead simple: "edit count" is not equal to "worth"; many good contributors know this. If you are lucky, you get judged by what you contribute to wikipedia, not what you have done in the past. Veteran contributors should and generally enjoy no special privilege. If their edits are bad, those edits get reverted. But no-so-intelligent contributors don't know this (yet?), and you may get judged something other than your contributions. That's reality. Again, Wikipedia:Edit count is a good read. -- Taku ( talk) 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
OMG! I read that Jimbo Wales used his credit card to steal all of Wikipedia's money and then beat up his Canadian reporter girlfriend. If he goes to jail, what happens to Wikipedia!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.162.88 ( talk) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this might be an amusing classroom assignment that could illustrate the perils of using wikipedia as a primary source:
The student would need to save the history URL of the page at that point in time (to prove that the error existed), and the error must exist at the time the assignment was made. For relevance, the article types could be restricted to a particular subject. Bonus points for finding additional errors in the same article.— RJH ( talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
Please forgive my ignorance, but can anyone with more background on this explain why Brian Peppers is protected against re-creation? Sarah Lynne Nashif ( talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Are signature books allowed? Do people like them? Are they useless? Do people get annoyed by them? SwirlBoy 39 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The little blurb below the Google result for the entire of wikipedia reads:
The biggest multilingual free-content encyclopedia on the Internet. Over 7 million articles in over 200 languages, and still growing.
How can this be updated to be correct (wikipedia now has over 10 million articles)? I know it can be done. -Icewedge ( talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody ! I was searching on the web information about "Print Servers" and I found these two pages :
Both texts are identical (except the second one has less formating). I didn't find any license information on networkdictionary.
I'm not sure who copied who, can anybody have a look ? Thanks. -- Escherichia coli ( talk) 11:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC) (if I am not on the correct page for that, let me know)
Hello Wikipedians! Please consider taking a few moments to respond to my research study on the past/present/future of Wikipedia. My thesis is based on Jimmy Wales' assertion that Wikipedia is a work in progress which continues to improve. I am comparing this statement to the theory that Wikipedia is a utopian idea that is bound to fail in the long run. I would be very grateful if you would visit my User page for more details. And please, spread the word. Many thanks. - AMQ815( talk) AMQ815 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to share this with you: There was a very good documentary on dutch television recently called "Wiki's Truth" (orig. Wiki's Waarheid) in which the pros and cons of Wikipedia as well as other Web 2.0 websites are discussed by Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, Andrew Keen (writer), Charles Leadbeater (writer) and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica). It's a dutch documentary, but in fact only the voice-over is in dutch, so all of the very interesting interviews, etc. are in English. If you want to watch it press this link (this will start the video right away). Free style 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's starting to be my experience that I can barely go to an article without there being some tag on it, like neutrality, references, etc., and often there are many tags on one article. This clutter bothers me as a user since it reminds me of that often seen parody of news channels like MSNBC, CNN, etc., where you can barely see the newsreaders because of all the banner graphics. Part of it could be due to the dual nature of Wikipedia; the tags are not so bad when read as an editor, but annoying when read as a user, although the argument can be made that they alert the user to any possible deficiencies in the article. But the user is likely to come away skeptical that anything in Wikipedia is up to standards. Any ideas? I should say that while I enjoy the collaborative aspects of these tags, since engaging in discussion before making changes is good, I am often left with a bad taste thinking, whether rightly or wrongly, that the tag applying editors are just lazy and critical. I picture them zipping though Wikipedia applying their critiques, instead of just fixing the problem. Just my impression. Spalding ( talk) 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a very similar problem: The articles I am thinking of were not created by myself, and I (because of my academic background that emphasizes appropriate citations and referencing) and others know that they are in great need of being improved. However, in one case I have tried to edit in the past: Smallthorne, every sentence in some sections have just been tagged with the "citation needed" tag, and in another article I have edited: Great Sankey, the same editor yesterday added a swathe of citation needed and "original research" tags whilst I was editing at one point (I had forgot to add the "inuse" template) to material I hadn't edited. Finally, the editor changed the name of one section and asked for it to be expanded to fit the greater scope it then had after the name change. Now, I have absolutely no quibble with the fact that the article was poorly referenced and needs improving, but the speed and extent to which the tags are added is disheartening to editors who currently are trying to improve them, and I think an alternative means of notifying deficiencies (say by a message on the talk page) would suffice (and, indeed, on Great Sankey there is such a message.) This particular editor is unlikely, given the actions on Great Sankey, to ignore just a simple removal of the tags. It is easy to add these tags, but it is time-consuming to fulfil the requests they place on interested editors, and I suggest that the people who excessively tag articles that have not been formally put forward for assessment for Grade B, Grade A GA or FA status might be better served by being less enthusiastic in tagging and more enthusiastic in finding the appropriate references themselves! DDStretch (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In another forum I have seen that 15,000 WP:Notability tags have been added in just the past 10 months. With tags having dates it is inevitable that sooner or later the backlog will cause articles to die without ever having been reviewed. In short, the flood of tags has altered the practical definition of waiting a reasonable amount of time. To that end I think it is time that we closed the floodgates to new tags until the backlog is cleaned up. This will not of course in any way prevent AfD related activities, with the proviso that age of existing tags needs to be a non-valid reason for deletion. See also a related discussion on this matter at the Village Pump [1]. Low Sea 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
After reflection it seems to me the core problem is that it is easier to take away from than to add to WP. Far too many editors are "improving" WP by taking away and not adding back. To that end perhaps an automated counter could be implemented that tracks activities that remove content and activities that add content and would block editors from being excessive on the former. Adding tags that could trigger deletion (needs cite, unsourced, AfD, etc) would be considered reductions, and adding article text, citations, etc would be considered additions. I think perhaps an 80/20 rule would be good (for every 8 reductions you must provide 2 additions). Again, this idea needs work but what do you think in general? Low Sea 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I am open to any crazy ideas on how we "motivate" editors to be more than taggers? Right now that is the easiest (Dare I say "laziest"? No, I won't say that.) way to contribute but in and of itself is not actually constructive, only critical. I'll start with one below but please let's brainstorm this. Low Sea 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Large articles are an inconvenience to dial-up users.
But this may be a " miner's canary" effect.
I complained on the talk page for the Earth article about the size of that page. In creating the table at the end of that discussion, it became apparent that the problem is much more widespread.
Articles that try to be all things to all people probably duplicate the efforts in other pages which are more focused in scope. This means that the effort of knowledgeable editors may be wasted by diffusion (editing multiple pages) or obscurity (some other Wikipedia article ranks higher in a search engine).
Articles that try to touch on every conceivable aspect of a topic create a haystack of information. Visitors are being inconvenienced by being forced to sift through a haystack to find a needle. The visitor sought a needle via a search engine. Wikipedia might give them a haystack: a page containing more than they ever wanted to know about the subject.
Visitors who want to print out an article may generate several pages of waste paper around the topic that was of interest to them. This is bad for the environment.
I will hesitate to put an article on my watch list if it tries to cover too many aspects of a topic. Only the last change appears in a watch list. If fifty-eleven topics are being addressed by the article, it is most likely that any alert on my watch list is going to be about something other than my narrow interest the topic. So why watch it?
Just because we can, doesn't mean that we must. Bits are cheap. We can put lots of them in one page.
Improvements in hardware have led to all manner of sloppiness in procedures and software. Things have "progressed" to the point where it now takes a ridiculously powerful machine to write a memo using a popular word processor. Ideally, machines are left to sort out the sloppiness in a way that is transparent to the user.
But the human mechanism for sifting data has not kept pace with advances in computer hardware. Huge pages are nice repositories of information (which is a function of books), but they are less effective as accessible tools (which is a function of an encyclopedia article). - Ac44ck ( talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
schulz@michelangelo 1:37am [~] links -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth | head -1097|wc 1097 7956 58021
WP:SIZE is quite well-enforced. What few pages we have that are more than 100KB in size are almost all lists, and the rest are aggressively de-bloated on a regular basis. I don't think it's reasonable to insist that we should only have, say, a 4-page article on a subject as broad and important as Earth. There's a balance between having a comprehensive-but-not-excessively-detailed article on such broad subjects, versus turning overview articles into little more than indexes for other pages. If I read an article on Earth, I expect to learn a little bit about everything. Four paragraphs on each of the most important subtopics is hardly excessive.
Frankly, I think we get the balance just right, and your complaint surprises me.-- Father Goose ( talk) 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Who the FRAK posted the identity of the final cylon?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.157.45 ( talk) 10:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding this here because I can think of nowhere else to put it - it's more a philosophical question.
If something bad happens in a school/commercial institution/government body etc. and is reported in the news - should it be added to the page of the entity. I ask this as I am currently weighing up a revert I have done to a page which a user has re-reverted. I'm not sure I'm right (you can find this here, but I'd like some thoughts on the general issue).
The case in hand is a school where a teacher was arrested for "fondling" a student. If the matter is not of national/international fame is it to be considered trivia, and the velleity to add it suppressed because of it's harmful nature? BananaFiend ( talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If something appears in the news, it should be posted at Wikinews. Why we never instituted a 1 month blackout on wiki*pedia* I will never know. ;-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 10:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, what's all this talk about a liberal bias on Wikipedia? Where did it come from, and what articles were used in the argument?-- Montaced ( talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Lately it feels like newsletters are getting really out of hand with Wikiprojects. Every Wikiproject appears to have one, and they're being released as frequently as three-four different days a week (that's not really the norm, but it is occurring with particular projects). There are a bunch of bot approval requests for newsletter delivery bots as well. But is this all necessary? Big Wikiprojects have a lot to report, so newsletter aren't that bad with those projects. The offending Wikiprojects appear to be with projects that don't do anything as a project and don't really need a newsletter.
I've left this vague rather than giving specific projects or users, but I can provide that if others would like to see examples. While I believe that this is mostly a decision that each Wikiproject needs to decide, should Wikipedia as a whole have any say on these. I have concerns that certain users are forgetting the points of Wikiprojects and newsletters and are spending their resources on the newsletters rather than actually working on the articles that the Wikproject is intended to improve. Metros ( talk) 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced question, moved to Reference desk. Gwinva ( talk) 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
HI, I don't know where else to post this, so please move if necessary. I created an article and, after a little while, found Wikipedia:Requests for feedback was the correct place to ask for ideas about improving it, so I did so. But, on looking, it becomes evident that hardly any editors (3 or 4?) have added any feedback to any of the numerous requests in the last month. It is a disappointingly low-traffic page. It seems to me that this page ought to have a higher profile, because the people who post there (me, for example) are positively trying to improve Wikipedia, and lack of response is disheartening. So, my question is, what is the best way to encourage more editors with experience to contribute to WP:RFF? Thanks for any help you can offer. BusinessAsUnusual ( talk) 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Blog is live. NonvocalScream ( talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
All this week, I have been thinking of one thing: wouldn't it be cool to have one, large,hardcover, bound copy of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, with every article on Wikipedia in it? Of course, Wikipedia is ever-changing. But, what if we create a WikiProject or Committee that goes through, and makes the articles at least good enough for a hard copy encyclopedia? It's a good idea, and I would LOVE feedback on it. I hope it's positive feedback, because it's best if you Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. ( talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
While researching a biography article I came across this paper on the use of wikis by undergraduates. Not specifically about Wikipedia, but it may be of interest. Wasn't sure where to post the link, so I thought that here is as good as anywhere. The paper is at [2]. DuncanHill ( talk) 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it encyclopedic to have lists of nonstop flights for each airport? Do such lists exist, either in wikipedia or not? Morecromulent ( talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Checking Category:Mammals of North America, Category:Mammals of Canada and Category:Mammals of the United States, the sorting is inconsistent: Either by leading word or last word. Which way is the correct one? -- KnightMove ( talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No... they are not. -- KnightMove ( talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Today, I went into my office in Tokyo, feeling somewhat grumpy and crappy because I've been off sick for the last couple of days with the flu (or something flu-like). Being Casual Friday, one of my Canadian co-workers was wearing a typical decorative Japanese t-shirt, the type with the chunk of English text on it 'cause it looks cool. This t-shirt, however, unlike pretty much every other one I've seen before, had its English text not in " Engrish", but in perfectly coherent, understandable, and even informative English. Pretty unusual for a Japanese t-shirt maker to pay attention to such details, I thought -- and then I had a hunch.
I'm sure you see where this is going: I went to the computer, looked up " Guitar" on Wikipedia, lo, right there in this section was essentially the text in question. Proof:
When I pointed this out to my co-worker, he lamented that Wikipedia may mean the death of "Engrish". Hey, Wikipedia IS doing some good. It made my day. -- Calton | Talk 14:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
They don't cite Wikipedia on it, though. I think that violates GFLD; time to sue! -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A new essay. Durova Charge! 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed an overhaul of Template:FreeContentMeta, based on an idea proposed at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis by User:Ned Scott. This template has been through a few TfDs, so I am posting here to have a wider input on the proposed changes. Please leave comments at Template talk:FreeContentMeta#Proposed overhaul. Thanks, -- Phirazo 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(Copy/pasted from
Template talk:FreeContentMeta)
I am proposing to change this template to an inline style that better serves the purpose of promoting free content. I've never liked the current style of this template, which seems a little too much like a web ad. The style I am proposing looks like this:
As opposed to the current style, seen at the right:
I think that the style I am proposing much more clearly indicates the linked content is free, and thus better promotes free content, while not looking like a web ad. It also avoids issues with logo copyrights, since many fandom wikis simply use the title card of the TV show they cover, and other free content wikis have their logos trademarked and copyrighted. -- Phirazo 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I want to first of all appreciate the efforts of the Volunteers who have kept Wikipedia Encyclopaedia running. The service is very useful and apt.
However, I have just observed in the content and discussion on Transport Geography, the omission of Pipeline as a mode/means of transportation. I do not intend to blame anyone for this omission because it is common in literature to overlook the critical role of Pipeline Transportation especially in the conveyance of oil and gas from oilfields to refineries and from refineries to final destination either for consumption or export purposes. Therefore, I do wish to advocate that pipeline should be added as a mode/means of transportation.
Overcoming spatial disparity in the location of oil and gas resources, all over the world, is usually done through pipelines. In the US for instance, there about 1.9 miles of pipeline right-of-way transporting gas and oil, from within and outside the country. Likewise in Nigeria, there is close to 8,000km length of pipeline (offshore and onshore) transporting oil and gas across board. I do hope my humble submission is considered and accepted.
Thanks for the anticipated understanding and cooperation.
Best wishes,
Babatunde Anifowose Doctoral Researcher Email: removed
I want to start a discussion on something I noticed recently on Wikipedia that often takes place during arguments, the comparison of edit counts or mainspace edits. I recently was reading through a long thread regarding an editor, and while not the only argument, an argument was made that one editor had been here longer and had more mainspace edits.
What surprised me was the argument was made in full view of numerous admins and no one discounted or countered the argument. My reason for posting is a clarification, and some questions regarding this practice.
If you have seen two editors compared solely on edit count, or seen an editor given a pass based on their edit count, how do you argue against it, or do you agree with it?
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this post. -- I Write Stuff ( talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Naw, your worth around here is a much more complex formula, including not only your edit count, mainspace edits, and length of time here, but also who your friends and enemies are, what cliques you're allied with or opposed to, what favors you owe or are due, whose shoes you've trampled on, whether your opinions on pressing issues are politically correct, how many points you've gained or lost by pleasing or pissing off the wrong people, and more. *Dan T.* ( talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to disagree with BanyanTree's implication that low mainspace edits means a less useful editor. My mainspace editcount is fairly low compared to my talkspace, but that does not mean that I am here chatting with my friends. It mean that I have spent a lot of time tagging articles for wikiprojects and assessing them. This, I would argue, is very important for WP:1.0 and the long-term goals of the project. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the page I linked in the first place. So this discussion is, essentially, beating the dead horse, and this post is just repeating myself, but anyway. First of all, the answer to the title of the section is dead simple: "edit count" is not equal to "worth"; many good contributors know this. If you are lucky, you get judged by what you contribute to wikipedia, not what you have done in the past. Veteran contributors should and generally enjoy no special privilege. If their edits are bad, those edits get reverted. But no-so-intelligent contributors don't know this (yet?), and you may get judged something other than your contributions. That's reality. Again, Wikipedia:Edit count is a good read. -- Taku ( talk) 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
OMG! I read that Jimbo Wales used his credit card to steal all of Wikipedia's money and then beat up his Canadian reporter girlfriend. If he goes to jail, what happens to Wikipedia!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.162.88 ( talk) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this might be an amusing classroom assignment that could illustrate the perils of using wikipedia as a primary source:
The student would need to save the history URL of the page at that point in time (to prove that the error existed), and the error must exist at the time the assignment was made. For relevance, the article types could be restricted to a particular subject. Bonus points for finding additional errors in the same article.— RJH ( talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)