Talk:Wikipedia
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Wikipedia is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
Archive 1 (discussion upto April 2003) Topics: FAQ, International Wikipedias, Wikipedia on CDROM, Wikipedia should be in the article namespace (discussion in March 2002), Script for automatically linking dates, Searching problem, Pornographic images...
Archive 2 (June-August 2003) Topics: Why have articles about movies and tv shows?, Can we describe Wikipedia with a neutral point of view?, Why new software?, Stallman, Unnecessary and harmful deletions? (August 2003), Hardware, Major figures in history of encyclopedias not included.
Archive 3 (October 2003-March 2004) Topics: Will you include "Photography" , perhaps in Arts and Culture?, Internet-Encyclopedia, Comparison graph, Is Wikipedia really a "free content" encyclopedia?, VfD header, new subject, Which Razi?, Excited about Wikipedia but will it last?, hi really nice website^^, First paragraph
Talk:Wikipedia/Heirarchical Linking System proposal (made in March 2004)
Archive 4 (April-December 2004)
You seriously need to update this to talk about how wikipedia actually works. things like administrators, deletions, etc.
- You can find that info over at Wikipedia:Community Portal (linked from the first paragraph of the main page). Dori | Talk 23:45, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
- The first paragraph no longer contains any obvious link to the Community Portal. Would it be appropriate to add a "Wikipedia Governance" section that briefly describes various roles (i.e. volunteer developers, stewards, bureaucrats, administrators, sysops, Jimbo), and also has a link to the Community Portal?
- Also, it would be nice if this main article better described the architecture of Wikipedia, such as the different groups or "namespaces" of content like articles and community pages. At a minimum, it should explain the difference between this article and the Wikipedia:introduction, because the distinction between the two makes no obvious sense to people who are not familiar with both. I suspect that the people who have done most of the editing of this article are so familiar with Wikipedia that it is difficult for them to look at it from a new person's point of view. JonathanFreed 20:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Response: This is an encyclopedia. It contain the history and legacy of Wikipedia, which is enough for a article on itself. Everything you want is on other pages.
| Contents |
Self-Reference
- If you wish to become a Wikipedia contributor, please take a look at the Introduction.
Isn't this a self-reference?
chocolateboy 19:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Introduction are two different articles. --Spug 00:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's not what I meant (the internal link to the Wikipedia namespace has since been moved to the external links section) by self-ref. See Talk:Wikipedia#Links outside the main namespace and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references :-)
chocolateboy 12:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Main page image and statistics
Perhaps the screenshot of the main page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_mainpage_of.PNG) should be updated to reflect the (slightly changed) new layout? --Spug 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Currently the page sais 'Wikipedia contains approximately 1.3 million articles, over 480,000 of which are in its English language edition'. This will get out of date relatively fast, unless these numbers get frequently updated. Can't we insert automatically the number of articlas, like on the front page? -- Adhemar
- Idem for the Language editions table -- Adhemar
- Using
- [ [Special:Statistics|809] ]
- (giving 809) for the number of English articles, and something similar for the entire amount of articles, perhaps? -- Adhemar
Odd quote
- "Fortunately, most of us are willing to take a definite stand against vandalism ... and to get rid of it instantly."
Am I the only one who thinks the above quote (by Larry Sanger) doesn't say much? I mean, is there anyone who would take a stand for vandalism (except the vandals), or anyone who would rather wait a few days before getting rid of it? Fredrik | talk 11:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. That is an odd quote.
A good odd quote indeed. Just wiki it. (http://www.just-wiki-it.com/)
External links
An anonymous user has changed "External links" to "Internal links" a couple of times. That creates problems for mirrors and dead-tree versions of course, especially since this article makes an excellent description of Wikipedia which can be used by librarians, newsletters, etc. However the anon has a point, most of the links do link back to Wikipedia, so "External links" doesn't seem right either. What about changing it to the alternate "Related links"? I think we can make an exception to the standard here. Rhobite 04:42, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- For internal links, our normal standard would be "See also". Is there a reason that wouldn't work here? JamesMLane 05:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a problem of context. This article is written as an article about Wikipedia, and it should be readable independently from the actual website. Wikilinks are nice hypertext features but they won't be available in standalone copies of articles, some mirrors, and paper versions. Since the article's subject is Wikipedia, it makes sense to link to relevant pages on Wikipedia (including Wikipedia: space articles which would otherwise break the self-reference policy). These links work best as external links. It can be a little confusing, but keeping these links as external links enforces the "fourth wall" we have between encyclopedia and Wikipedia. Rhobite 06:09, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- External links must die. "Further reading" is more accurate, and not self-referential. Fredrik | talk 10:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia addiction not mentioned
It is not necessarily a bad thing, but one can get addicted to wikipedia, or some sort of over-navegation, even leaving the rest of the internet unattended, or even my girl or curricular study. For sure its a weak time in my life and maybe wikipedia time is some best part of it. Not a dead end addiction for me. I do find a great ease when flipped to a world of ilustrated things.
I am sure there is some knowledge out there about examples of syndorome-sort of extreem atachment and use of this great bit of informatic communication and people. If it is of some importance of it maybe there should be some mention of it.
Best regards, Pablo (from Spain)
Wikipedia is the main introduction page to Wikipedia
Currently, new users' introduction to what Wikipedia is is limited to 2 lines of description on the main page, and if they want more information they click on the Wikipedia link. The policy on this page should take into account that this page is thus not just an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, but is the main introduction & public relations page.
I'm not sure why it was removed that many news sources have featured positive profiles of Wikipedia. --Nectarflowed 13:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I removed the "Wikipedia has received plaudits from" line that duplicated in the introduction and awards from the intro. If there's a better way I don't mind of course, but I don't think the justification can be that this is our "public relations page", which would violate NPOV. 119 19:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 119- Thanks for pointing that out. By 'public relations' I mean an interface that presents introductory information to the public. In this sense, I think it's important to the introductory understanding of Wikipedia that this page provides to note the reviews Wikipedia gets from prominent news sources, as well as the IBM study. However, I agree with what you point out, that "plaudits" would be a questionable phrasing in terms of NPOV.Nectarflowed 20:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. I don't think we should alter our normal encyclopedic approach just because the article happens to be linked to from the Main Page. That's really the wrong approach: our policies should be the same as everwhere else in the main article space. If we have a great need to treat this page differently, then we should not use this page for that purpose, but direct the user to a different page from the Main Page. — Matt Crypto 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If a different page is required (though I disagree), it should probably be Wikipedia:About. Fredrik | talk 01:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What about Wikipedia:Wikipedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion for image to add
Screenshot of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia, as an example of how a Wikipedia article might look ;-) - Fredrik | talk 19:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be a little like looking at a mirror through a mirror? :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 20:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
h3
Stevietheman has changed the categories in External links from ; to h3 with no edit summary. Why? I think there is no improvement in functionality or presentation to have a h3 above every two or three links. It is completely out of proportion and clutters the table of contents. 119
- Because that's the normal way it's done. And it's look just fine to me. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 01:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"restore Lisbon, as it's an important example regarding the need to cite sources" - SlimVirgin
- Wikipedia is not for editors, it is for the wider public. Do you have another reason to keep it? 119 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Power Failure
Is it just me, or is there no mention of Monday's power failure anywhere on this page or any page? Am I missing something?
- If we mentioned every time something went wrong with the site, the article would be a mile long. If you're looking for information instead of just wanting it in this article, see m:February 2005 server crash. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Extremely impressed by the references
I have to say that am extremely impressed that this article is referenced, and the method of doing so. I'll have to figure out how its done, but it looks very professional and something I believe that should be done for all Wikipedia Articles. Increasingly websites with articles like cycloid (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cycloid.html) also have references. I think it is increasingly becoming so that any piece of information, from what ever source, needs to be referenced as the public becomes more skepticle of the information it consumes. - anon
- A Wikiproject called Fact and Reference Check (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check) exists to help reference all the facts within Wikipedia. If anyone is interested please come and take a look :). --ShaunMacPherson 23:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It took us ages to get this done... all our current articles that people would like to be featured must be referenced in such a way! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strange, I just reverted this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=10681424) in which an anon changed 2003 to 2009, and the original is not on history. 119 21:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Correction times in the vandalism section
The mix of days and minutes in the "vandalism" section looked bizarre to me. I suspected vandalism and spent ten minutes trying to find the first version of these numbers without success. Could someone who understands them please check that they are correct, and if they are, please explain what more of the terms mean and why the differences of magnitude are so vast? Wincoote 01:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't seen that section modified yet; it was written by me and its source cited as "Viegas, Wattenberg, and Dave (2004)" which is available under References for checking. The discrepancy in days/minutes is due to the differences between mean and median. 119 02:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No it isn't. It is obviously wildly wrong and the reference doesn't help. How did it get featured article with this in it? I am going to delete it in the hope it will prompt a correction. Gillian Tipson 13:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Page 579. Check it. This is infuriating: I clearly cite a source which contains the numbers verbatim, and you delete it as "wildly wrong"?! 119 15:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Revision - Type - Number - Mean time - Median time
All content - 618,502 - 22.3 days - 90.4 minutes
Mass delete - (MD) - 3,574 - 7.7 days - 2.8 minutes
MD obscene - 47 - 1.8 days - 1.7 minutes
Again, that is page 579 of Fernanda B. Viegas, Martin Wattenberg, and Kushal Dave, "Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations (http://web.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf)", CHI 2004 April 24-29 2004. It has been available for fact checking as long as this information was up. 119 15:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Look at the mass delete figures. 7.7 days is 3,960 times greater than 2.8 minutes. What on earth is one supposed to make of that? Are we to believe that half of the events were corrected in 2.8 minutes or less, but the other half typically took more than a fortnight? Do you find that sufficiently probable that no comment is needed? These numbers are not useful without a thorough explanation, which you have made no attempt to provide. They simultaneously say that Wikipedia is correctly really quickly and that it is corrected really slowly. The former fits the context and the latter does not. Perhaps you have a high level understanding of statistics and can explain it all (though you are yet to demonstrate any evidence of this), but this is the general article about Wikipedia, and it should be clearer than it is. 03:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- I see now that you are criticising the reference itself and not the summary of it. It has been accurately presented, yes? Neutral point of view is to do just that, and it is certainly not in accordance with the policy to delete material you personally find dubious. Making your own argument against it would fall under no original research. It's there, and it's an accurate, neutral summary of their article--let the reader decide. 119 04:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think this paragraph should probably be explained a bit better. The mean vs. median difference means that most of these "mass delete" changes are reverted quickly, but a few instances remain for a very long time. I'm not calling them vandalism because I'm not convinced that the "mass delete" category is sound. If someone posts 500KB of nonsense to a small page which I then revert, I believe my revert would get included as a "mass delete". Maybe I read the article wrong. Rhobite 04:20, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I should add that those mean and median statistics are easily achievable. For the "mass delete obscene" category, n = 47. Half of the articles in that data set are reverted in under 1.7 minutes, but all it takes is one outlier, which has stayed vandalized for a couple months, to bring the mean revert time up to 1.8 days. Unfortunately we don't have any more information about their sample data but I'm willing to bet that even their 80th-90th percentile is still in the minutes range. Statistically this is not as impossible as you're making it sound Gillian. Still, I think the paragraph should be rephrased. Rhobite 04:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree, and I think we should keep in mind that many readers have very little experience with statistics, so such counter-intuitive results may require some explanation.--Nectarflowed (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- I take it then that there are three people in favor of including this, and one against? It is still out as I write. 119 15:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it should be included but rephrased. Rhobite 15:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
more criticism
NOTE: As I have withdraw my adition I include it here so that the rest of the users can make informed suggestions--LexCorp 08:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It has also been noted that wikipedia can easily serve as a propaganda dissemination tool for well organised and determined groups who want to push a politically or ideologically motivated agenda. The tactics that these groups employ is to slowly erode the content of opposed articles by invoking the NPOV policy so that little by little they are able to modify the article being attacked. This generally results in the generation of enough doubt about the correctness of the topic of the article in the mind of visiting users so that they follow the provided alternative POV links supplied. These links normally point to a web of wikipedia articles consisting of large numbers of subtle neologism with lot of external links to material supporting their content. These webs of articles are no more than a repository of the group propaganda, which normally provide the information the group wants to disseminate in a POV fashion. The articles that belong to these webs are fanatically defended from alteration by members of the group employing the tactic. The group manages to successfully defend the articles POV due to the fact that the articles are neologisms which are supported by vast information resources from outside wikipedia and by invoking the NPOV policy to argue that any modification is ofensive to them and thus POV. Of course these external resources are controlled by the group and are neither NPOV nor the view of the majority of people. An excellent example of such groups is the Creationist (particularly but not exclusively the Young Earth Creationist) and their persistent attacks on articles describing science, science methodology and philosophy, evolution, geology and any other subject that contradicts their view. Creation science, flood geology, creation bilology and creation anthropology are some of the neologism they use. Wikipedia answer to this criticism is that, even when confronted by such organised groups, the underlying assumption that contributing user are able to maintain the NPOV of the content of wikipedia in the long run is still valid. Critics argue that such views can not be held rationally and that many good contributors of wikipedia leave the project frustrated that the policies of wikipedia or the way they are implemented do not help at all when faced with such tactics as the one described above.
So because I learned something through me being involved in a dispute.Then I can't point out a valid criticism of wikipedia in the section criticism in the wikipedia article. That is also a very strange NPOV policy concept you got there. --LexCorp 07:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) If you think the way it is worded or phrased is POV then try to make ammends and not just delete it into oblivion.--LexCorp 07:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Your addition is both POV and original research; I do not think it should be in the article. — Matt Crypto 07:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I guess the point of criticism is to be POV in order to balance articles and sections of articles with other POV in them. Thus wikipedia policy allows for the inclusion of various POV to make an article NPOV. So it will be strange indeed if the criticism was not skew toward a POV. Mainly because that is what criticisms are a POV stament related to another statement. As for original research. I have my doubts as it is an opinion that at least another user shares with me. and I am quite sure there must be thousands who feel the same.
- What I don't understand is why aren't people, instead of reverting the part I included, trying to iron it out so that the criticism comes across the article but any misgivings as to its POV disappear. My inability to convey a criticism should not be a barrier. I am finding, more and more, that instead of this being the apparent warm receiving community of users/helpers is becaming a segregated stronghold of articles in which any serious edition suggestion is answer with a rudeness which frankly puts off anyone from contributing.--LexCorp 07:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see any part of your addition that can be saved. You're taking a current dispute, which you're involved in yourself, and casting it as a flaw of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This is your opinion, it doesn't belong in this article. We have to be especially careful when editing this article, because most of us are very attached to the topic. We have to be careful about praising Wikipedia, but we also have to be careful about letting current edit wars spill across the "wall" into this article. As Matt Crypto said, your addition is original research. It's an essay about a perceived failing of the NPOV policy. You're not the first person to make these claims, but they are already presented in Criticism of Wikipedia. Rhobite 07:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- So if I am not the first person to make this claims I guess it is not original research after all. I do understand your point about sensibility with the wikipedia. It is because I also love wikipedia and what it represent(free information unbias) that I point out a glaring flaw that percludes that objetive from been real. I have read the Criticism of Wikipedia and I am not happy as to how it describes the phenomenon I am trying to convey as it asumes that there is no organisation between those persistem users. Will it be ok to move my addition to that article stating that some users feel that what I describe is ocurring or at least they feel it is ocurring.--LexCorp 08:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, it is still original research. There is no method of attributing your claims, unless we should try to smoothly transition from citations of Britannica editors and academic studies to "LexCorp says..." Together with this is of course noteworthiness. See Wikipedia:No original research. 119 08:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- so how did this get into the article Criticism of Wikipedia,
- Flame wars
- Some people who are familiar with interactions between individuals on Wikipedia and UseNet predict that
- ”Wikipedia is going to end up like Usenet — just a bunch of flame wars.”
- Response: This is a bit more of a problem, but it is dealt with fairly handily by the social mores of Wikipedia, aka Wikiquette.
- Usenet lacks at least two features that are absolutely essential to Wikipedia's success: (1) on Usenet, you can't edit other people's work, while we can here on Wikipedia, thereby encouraging creative and collegial collaboration; or more strongly, on Wikipedia, there's no such thing as "other people's work", because there's no ownership of information; (2) Unlike Wikipedia, Usenet does not have the possibility of enforcing community-agreed standards. Moreover, Usenet is a debate forum. Wikipedia is, very self-consciously, an encyclopedia project! This provides at least some agreement on What Wikipedia is not.
- Disputes become tedious battles of persistence
- Several contributors have complained that editing Wikipedia is very tedious in case of conflicts and that fanatic contributors with idionsyncractic, non-mainstream, non-scientific belief systems can push their point of view because nobody has the time and energy to fight them. Partly in response to his battles with followers of Lyndon LaRouche, one prolific, high profile contributor, Adam Carr Ph.D. (http://www.adam-carr.net/), stated in October 2004 that he would scale down his contributions to Wikipedia considerably (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam_Carr) because of, what he considers, the too open nature of Wikipedia.
- Is it not by your criteria also original research?
- Could I not include,
- Several contributors have noted that wikipedia can easily serve as a propaganda dissemination tool for well organised....
- or
- Some people who are familiar with Wikipedia have noted that wikipedia can easily serve as a propaganda dissemination tool for well organised....
- I just don't understand your criteria for original research. --LexCorp 08:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Clearly there's a difference between a short description of a common problem, and a long-winded rant against creationists. Do you really think it's neutral to say that the views of creationists are "propaganda"? That they are "attacking" Wikipedia? Should an article about Wikipedia say that creationist views "cannot be held rationally"? Rhobite 16:14, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- That it is a rant about creationist is your POV. Mine is that it is a legit criticism about wikipedia. So it is your believe that describing things for what they are is POV but confusing issues by neologism is more NPOV?. To say that something is rational or irational only describes that the former is argumented logically while the later is not. How can a description like that be POV? are any logic argument inerently POV?
- Again if you think it is too long and a rant. Why not make suggestiong to condansete it and improve it?--LexCorp 16:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is pointless, we're going around in circles. As I said before, I don't see any portion of your essay which can be saved or condensed into something usable. Rhobite 18:27, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- And what should I read from that?. That your opinion is sacrosant and mine worthless. I believe I am argumenting my points effectively and that you are not giving my neither convincing arguments to the contrary nor a satisfactory suggestion of how to include the criticism into the article Criticism of Wikipedia.--LexCorp 18:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Three people have patiently explained to you why your essay is unsalvageable. You choose to ignore our explanations - so be it. I've pointed out specific examples of phrases which should never be in a Wikipedia article unattributed. I really can't explain this any more. I'm sorry, but I have to fall back on consensus here. Three people disagree with you, and nobody has spoken in favor of your essay. Rhobite 20:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- And what should I read from that?. That your opinion is sacrosant and mine worthless. I believe I am argumenting my points effectively and that you are not giving my neither convincing arguments to the contrary nor a satisfactory suggestion of how to include the criticism into the article Criticism of Wikipedia.--LexCorp 18:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is pointless, we're going around in circles. As I said before, I don't see any portion of your essay which can be saved or condensed into something usable. Rhobite 18:27, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- There is a large population in favour of what LexCorp is suggesting, the difference is that as rational people, we gave up on trying to stablish a more reputable means of conveing facts and information in a completley unregulated medium (in our POV) like wikipedia. Most of us do publish in peer reviewed publications in the scientifict community and would rather feel we are doing something for humankind other than wasting our time with wikipedia unless it changes. Time will tell. We may be silent, but we keep an eye. Askewmind | (Talk) 22:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WTD's edits
I'm a bit puzzled as to why WTD's edits were reverted. he made the sensible point that, in fact, of course it's not possible to access the whole of human knowledge, and he referred the reader to the page history to see how open-access wordks. These were reverted by Rhobite without explanation, so far as I can see. Am I missing something? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I've just found comments on WTD's Talk page (he seems to think that Rhobite and I are the same person, though I'm not sure why), together with some explanation of the reverts. To be honest, though, I'm still not entirely clear what the problem is with either edit; I wonder if it could be discussed here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- WTD added this: "The 'sum' - or totality - of human knowledge is, of course, inaccessible; 'twould, perhaps, be arrogant to think otherwise. However..." First off it's inappropriate to speculate about arrogance. That part is definitely POV. In another edit WTD added "see the history of this page" - clearly self-referential. For WTD's other point, I'm not sure if we should point out that the sum of human knowledge is inaccessible. I'm not the only person who reverted WTD. As others said in their edit summaries, this is obvious. As I mentioned on WTD's talk page, Jimbo's quote is somewhat rhetorical - I don't interpret it completely literally, and I don't think it's intended to be interpreted literally. Much like groups who are trying to "end world hunger" or politicians who want to put "a chicken in every pot", Wikipedia is never going to reach its goal. I think that's understood. If someone has criticized Wikipedia for its apparently impossible mission statement, we should cite that. If WTD's addition is merely his/her own opinion, we should not add it to the lead section. Hope this clarifies things. Rhobite 19:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure about the business about the sum of all knowledge (it might be unnecessary for most people, but putting it in wouldn't do any harm at least, and might make Wikipedia look less pie-in-the-sky for some literal-minded readers). The bit that I don't understand, though, is self-reference. I mean, an article on Wikipedia is already pretty damned self-referential; moreover, referring to the edit history isn't referring to the page — and if one's explaining how it all works, then referring to the page is surely an obvious way of doing it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please read my comments from #External_links above - they apply here as well. Basically, this should not be treated as an article within Wikipedia; it should be treated as an article about Wikipedia. As a rule of thumb, any references which would not make sense in a paper version of this article are not acceptable. Rhobite 20:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll not pretend to be completely convinced, but my concerns aren't important enough to distract us from getting on with more useful matters. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above raises a few interesting wee points. I had formed the impression that Wiki was truly open and editable; then I formed the impression that my contributions were being edited unreasonably; then, without realising what 'reverts' might mean, I formed the impression I'd upset a few 'fans'; then I formed the impression that 'openly editable' was, on certain pages, a misnomer. Finally, I formed the impression - wholly erroneously, perhaps - that my edits were, in effect, being censored. I say "formed the impression"; I'm not saying these impressions were accurate; and whilst I say "censored" I am not suggesting this is what was really happening; just what it felt like at the time, to me, as new here. However, I do differentiate "'twould, perhaps, be arrogant" from "It is arrrogant"; the former is not, to me anyway, POV. Also, I cannot see how ref to a page history is self-ref - I was inviting others to read the stuff. WTD 02:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The problem isn't that the points you have tried to make are seen as "wrong," but that Wikipedia editors don't make personal assertions. I think including "twould, perhaps, be arrogant to think otherwise" would be contrary to both the "Neutral Point of View" and "No original research" policies. If you find noteable remarks on Wales' definition which can be attributed to their author, then that's another matter. 119
Suggestions for Improvements To Wikipedia
Are there any plans to create/use a distributed approach to Wikipedia? Somthing similar to the method used by Bittorrent where users share space and bandwidth.
- what silsor 22:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Would you like to have BitTorrent response times as well? Domas Mituzas 22:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
- However, it might be useful to use BitTorrent as a way of distributing the database dumps... -- Karada 23:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, as it's essentially impossible to do while maintaining editability. Such systems work wonders for static content. Dynamic stuff? Not so much. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
List of language editions
Is there any reason not to include the list of language editions? This article is about an encyclopedia, and it seems very natural to include the list of major editions with the number of article in each one. Since I can't find a justification not to do so, I am going to restore this again. -- Taku 22:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- That list is badly out of date and cannot be up to date. As you said when removing a functionally identical 'currently', "this is not a newspaper article." 119 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lucky for us, we are now able to update the counts, as http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm is up again. While we agree that this article is not meant to be on the press, I think, as said above, it is natural to note the number of articles for each edition. -- Taku 19:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism to the main Wikipedia pages
I usually enter Wikipedia via the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia page. What annoys me to no end is the constant problem with vandalism to the Wikipedia page. For example, quite often I have found the page almost completely deleted of content! At other times, the Wikipedia page is subject to continuing edit wars. To solve these problems I submit that the Wikipedia administrators should permanently lock the Wikipedia page. This will ensure a reliable informative guide to Wikipedia. With the present system, one can't be sure what you may find on the Wikipedia page. Leave all the other pages for open edits, but please lock the main Wikipedia user guide page. Bivariate-Correlator 1 April 2005
- This page isn't intended as a user guide; it's an encyclopedia article that happens to be on the topic of Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 22:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weird criticism, lacking source
- Wikipedia articles contain extensive cross-referencing to other articles through links. As a result, it has been criticised for being a "Google bomb" which disrupts search engine results.
Criticized by whom? Fredrik | talk 20:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That's been in for some time. I've looked for references but haven't seen anything. 119 20:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well the main place I've seen it discussed like this is on Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia:send in the clones but it seems to me that that may not be the best reference. Google did have to do some work to fix the problem. Mozzerati 21:09, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
Wikipedia Merchandise
Is the Wikipedia Merchandise link, http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia, proper to include in Wikipedia? 119 07:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I guess it is like licensed merchandising... in a way? -- user:zanimum
Uncyclopedia
Worthy of note in our external links? http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page -- user:zanimum
- How about an internal link to Uncyclopedia? -- Cyrius|✎ 14:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Origin of the idea
The article says,
- Wales and Sanger attribute the concept of using a wiki to Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb or Portland Pattern Repository, the original wiki, though disagree regarding credit. Sanger attributes the idea to Ben Kovitz, a regular at this wiki, in January 2001.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_SangerKovitz) Wales credits Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee of Bomis who showed him the same wiki, in December 2000.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_WalesRosenfeld)
Not correct. See the Sanger's memoirs (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-April) thread on Wikipedia-L and revise accordingly.
- From "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia" by Sanger, and Wales' reply on the thread "Sanger's memoirs" on Wikipedia-l:
- Sanger: "I had dinner with an old Internet friend of mine, Ben Kovitz... Ben explained the idea of Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb to me."
- Wales:"In mid-December, Jeremy showed me Ward Cunningham's wiki..."
- How do you think it is incorrect? 119 21:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is why the 'net exists!
Surely the reason that the 'net exists is so that sites like this can exist. The ideal of the sharing of knowledge for the mutual benefit of humanity in general is the ideal of the internet itself. The world wide web exists so that knowledge can be compiled in one place, so that all human knowledge can be stored for all time and made avalible for all people. This website - whatever its failings - should be praised.(discus)
Adam-Casey-Philosopher
- What on earth would lead you to believe that there is a reason the net exists?
- Steven Zenith 02:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
We seem to be missing the article
Or am I going blind? —shoecream 04:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- It was deleted by Rdsmith4 for some unexplained reason and was subsequently restored by someone else. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 04:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Fundraising
Should we have information on how Wikipedia regularly does fundraising drives, and also the Cafe Press merchandise? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- The article should definitely tell how wikipedia is financed, but merchandising is superfluous IMO. --Elian 00:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh no!
Someone has deleted everything in this article and replaced it with: "Wikipedia: The Website you are looking at."
I'm from h2g2, and I shudder to think how bad this would make us look if it was one of our people playing this HHGG-style joke on y'all.
Get it back if you can! I was actually looking for info on an article I was writing about user-written sites like this.
- Wikipedia:Clear your cache - that vandalism was fixed already andy 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I decided to add "In other words, it's what you're looking at now, if you didn't already know that", to the current page, but any similarities are purely coincedental. SabinFigaro 22:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)SabinFigaro
IBM & MIT study reference
- "In a study of the page histories of Wikipedia's English-language edition, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and IBM researchers Viegas, Wattenberg, and Dave found the mean time to correct "mass delete" and "mass delete obscene" vandalism to be 7.7 days and 1.8 days, and the median times 2.8 minutes and 1.7 minutes respectively. In contrast, the average persistency of a revision marked "all content" was found to be 22.3 days, the median time 90.4 minutes."
The footnote for this study links to the Meta article on Wikipedia, which doesn't mention the study.--Nectarflowed (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- The user Neutrality apparently broke it a few days ago and did not fix it, as this revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=13500679) is still good. The link still goes to the correct footnote, the templates used will always do that, but the numbering is off now. 119 20:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Italics
Should Wikipedia be italicized? While it has been changed to plain as though it were a careless mistake, the reasoning behind Wikipedia was that it is the title of an encyclopedia. 119 20:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, the Manual of Style states that books and titles of longer works should be italicized. Wikipedia should be italicized, just as Encyclopedia Britannica is. --Poiuyt Man talk 00:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- No, it should not. Online works are never italicized. Neutralitytalk 05:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, the Manual of Style has no mentioning of whether the medium the media exists on (online or paper) has any bearing on whether it is italicized or not. It seems to focus more on the type of media and its breadth. Although the MoS does not specifically state that encyclopedias are italicized, they definitely qualify as "longer works", and probably fall in under "book". In my opinion, it shouldn't matter whether it's physical or electronic — Wikipedia:Cite sources treats all magazine articles, (e-)books, and encyclopedias the same, electronic or not. --Poiuyt Man talk 06:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- When i refer to fiction of book-length published only in electronic editions (as i have done in several debates on SF works), i use italics, or an indication of them. Where is the rule that "Online works are never italicized." to be found, in the MoS or any style guide? Most online works are of a length that would not justify italics if printed, but some are long enough and Wikipedia surely is.DES 16:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, the Manual of Style has no mentioning of whether the medium the media exists on (online or paper) has any bearing on whether it is italicized or not. It seems to focus more on the type of media and its breadth. Although the MoS does not specifically state that encyclopedias are italicized, they definitely qualify as "longer works", and probably fall in under "book". In my opinion, it shouldn't matter whether it's physical or electronic — Wikipedia:Cite sources treats all magazine articles, (e-)books, and encyclopedias the same, electronic or not. --Poiuyt Man talk 06:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be italicized just like the Encyclopedia Britannica, as per the MoS. BlankVerse ∅ 11:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think it should be bold-faced, blinking and surrounded by a bright red box :) Seriously though, italicized sounds appropriate. Radiant_* 16:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- At the risk of complicating a wonderfully trivial discussion, we should perhaps distinguish Wikipedia the work from Wikipedia the organisation. I think it's the multiple meanings of the word which cause the confusion. Mark1 02:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- An excellent point. Unfortunately, the line between the two may be rather vague, and I would not know where to start with differentiating them. --Poiuyt Man talk 11:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I would use italic when refering to the articles signly or collectively, but not when refering to the administative structure, the people who run it, the legal entity, or the community of editors and others that has grown up. if in doubt, i wluld italicize. Note that this mostly refers to uses in articles themselves. On talk pages, people are often less formal and careful with their formatting anyway. DES 16:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- An excellent point. Unfortunately, the line between the two may be rather vague, and I would not know where to start with differentiating them. --Poiuyt Man talk 11:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When referring to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, we should use the same style as for other encyclopaedias. When referring to Wikipedia as a website or an online community, we should use the same style as for other websites and online communities. Or, to put it another way, whether italics should be used or not depends on context, jguk 08:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A nonte from an anon
wikipedia is a very awesome resource but the fact that people can change whatever they want in it whenever thery want (kind f like i've been doing for about the last 15 minutes) makes it a little less dependable. (unsigned comment posted by 204.185.71.252 (talk • contribs).
- You may have noticed by now that your edits have been examined and removed. That anybody can add whatever they want, anybody else can fact check it. Those who chronically vandalize or intentionally add "bad" data will also quickly find themselves blocked from editing. – ClockworkSoul 15:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Innacuracy in wikipedia and paper Encyclopedias
There is a substancial problem in this issue in the article. Wikipedia can have innacuracy problems, but when the subject is foreign countries is more reliable than English language paper Encyclopedias. When I read Portuguese-related info on paper Encyclopedia in English it is FULL of innacuracies, at least in here there are several people that is from various countries and correct many innacuracies that are found in paper enc. ~just my 2 cents. -Pedro 19:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Health Warning Required
There really needs to be a clearer statement in this article and on the main page of the limitation of the Wikipedia. Not only is it open to the abuse of the well intentioned it is subject to subtle revision by special interest groups.
Wikipedia potentially undermines the basis of public consensus building. It is being accepted as an authority when there is no basis for that acceptance. In short, without wishing to be alarmist (but being alarmed), I see Wikipedia as socially damaging and dangerous. A clearer and more prominent statement of the issue *on all pages* is required in my view.
Steven Zenith 20:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- There has been much discussion about this in the past. There is a link to the general disclaimers on each page, so there is no need to have different disclaimers for each page otherwise. --Clawed 20:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- The disclaimers are not sufficiently prominent. The public health warning I think appropriate would be prominantly displayed at the head of each page - in large bold and RED letters.
- Steven Zenith 02:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before and rejected. This is also the absolute wrong place to discuss this, being as this page is for discussing only this article. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Proposal:Add link to WP:NOT
We should add a link somewhere on this page to what Wikipedia is not. I think it is important to show new users not only what WP is but what WP is not.
- This page isn't meant to be an introduction to wikipedia for wikipedia users, this is an article about the entity wikipedia (a subtle distinction). It might well be read by someone not using wikipedia at all, who is instead using some services that uses content part of which originated on wikipedia. We're GFDL after all. (see also) --W(t) 06:21, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
- True, but such a reader might still fid it useful to know why soiem kinds of content are not included in Wikipedia. I think such a link would add to an understqnding of what Wikipedia is, which is the subject of this article. DES 16:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it is still noteworthy to talk about what editors of wikipedia (i.e., us) think what should be included and what should not be. But making a link is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. -- Taku 23:50, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Proposal to rename the self-article
I think the Wikipedia article should swap content between Wikipedia:Wikipedia and Wikipedia, and make the main title Wikipedia:Wikipedia since the article mainly focuses on Wikipedia. --SuperDude 21:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It is an article about Wikipedia. It isn't a user guide. It isn't something specifically for this project (as the Wikipedia: namespace dictates), but an encyclopedia article on an encyclopedic topic. smoddy 21:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia. Why would we want to have a encyclopedia article about wikipedia in the wikipedia namespace, why not just stick the aricle on a talk page? --Clawed 21:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object, this is an informative article, and articles don't belong in the Wikipedia: namespace (it's for guides, reference). --Poiuyt Man talk 00:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object, for the reasons mentioned above. Perhaps you can add some flesh to Wikipedia:Wikipedia if it needs any. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 04:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Object for reasons stated above. -- Arwel 13:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object. per above. BlankVerse ∅ 14:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Articles should remain in the article namespace, project articles should be in the Wikipedia namespace. But I'm surprised that Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia — isn't there anything that's project-oriented that we have to say about ourselves? — Asbestos | Talk 14:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object Article NS. …Guy M… (soapbox) 00:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
FYI I looked at this article on the date below, only to find that the content had been somewhat altered. It was only one phrase and I think it went "A gay site by a bunch of queafing (?) transsexuals." The strange thing was that the history revealed nothing, only when I "edited" the article (went to 'edit this page' and clicked edit) did the normal page come up. Any ideas as to how the vandal managed to alter the page without it appearing on the history? (Taking a look at the history you'll notice that Mel Etitis (i think) recently reverted a vandalism, could it be the same vandal?) Dan 18:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, Dan. Yes, it was reverted by Mel at 16:24, 6 minutes after the vandalism. This link won't last long (oh for MediaWiki 1.5!), but you can see his reversion here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=0&oldid=14881894). Cheers, smoddy 18:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Criticism of Wikipedia merged and redirected
Crossposted at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia:
I have merged the unique content of Criticism of Wikipedia into this article and turned Criticism of Wikipedia into a redirect. There was striking overlap, so the unique content didn't amount to much, see JRM's murderous plans at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, section "Warning: I intend to kill this page". Mostly such content consisted of fuller quotes from authorities already cited in Wikipedia, e. g., this well-known and telling quote from Robert McHenry: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." Anything like that has been tenderly merged into Wikipedia. The only things I've knowingly let fall by the wayside, as being too low-quality for a featured article, is unsourced grinching by Some People, for example "Some people predict that Wikipedia is going to end up as "just as a bunch of flame wars"" (some people seem to be quoting some other people here).
If anybody's planning to revert my actions, please give some thought to the issue of references, because the Criticism page did have something that Wikipedia was in want of: an appropriate (if short) "References" section. Wikipedia had and has a very fine collection of references, but before my meddling, they were given only in a footnote section (confusingly titled "References".) Footnotes are not enough, the reader also needs an alphabetical list of the sources used. But won't such a list merely duplicate information already given in the footnotes? Yes. Well, isn't that a wanton waste of space? No, it's an essential reader convenience. The reader who wonders if Simon Waldman's Guardian article was used, or who wants the bibliographical information for it, needs to be able to find it on an organized list, as opposed to having to dig it out of a disorganized list, which is what the footnotes are. The alphabetical list can be dispensed with if there are only a few references—usefulness and what the reader really needs are the overriding principles—but the larger the number of references, the more important it becomes to have it.
I have made a start on a proper "References" section by importing the short References list (only three items) from Criticism of Wikipedia. I have also inlined references to these three sources in appropriate places in the text, where required. These references and their placement in the text were valuable information in Criticism of Wikipedia, and I have been careful of it. Oh, and I have renamed the footnote section "Footnotes".
I'm hoping somebody else will help with the work of adding all the other footnoted sources in alphabetical order to the new References section. Alphabetize by author's name where known, please, otherwise by article name or page name. If you like, feel free to list the sources without taking any trouble over formatting, I'll be dropping by to format them if required, and to add them myself if necessary. (I admit I'd like to see first if anybody's going to revert the work I've done so far. Feel free to be bold, as I was.) Bishonen | talk 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Simple English Wikipedia
I have come across the sister project Simple English Wikipedia (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), and i found that searching for it on wikipedia redirects to this article, even though it is not mentioned here. Shouldnt it at least be mentioned under Sister Projects, and perhaps even have its own article?--ColdFeet 04:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is the name wikipedia copyrighted?
Originally posted by: Mir 03:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) at the top of the page, and never answered.
- Yes, it is trademarked. See meta:Wikimedia_trademarks --michael180 15:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Awards
We're meant to international, right? What about awards from other countries? I know that there have been several from Germany. Can we add info on these? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why wikipedia`s goal be removed?
I put the section "Goal", I copied that from wikimedia official pages. Thanks for your answer.--GengisKanhg (my talk) 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I can't quite find where it was removed, but it was a little bit too promotional (which is fine for the wikimedia official pages, but not for a neutral article about wikipedia). I suppose we could have a section on Wikipedia's goals, however I think it pretty much follows from the intro section. --W(t) 11:35, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Factoids?
I am doing a research project on Wikipedia itself (its ease of use, how to use, factual information on it, advantages compared to paper alternatives), and I was wondering if there were figures anywhere on how many pictures are hosted on Wikipedia. Moreover, if that information exists, I don't see a reason why it can't be featured on this page. --Pathogen 19:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think the Wikipedia statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm) pages should prove useful. The number of images and other files on the English Wikipedia was 227,000 as of May 15, with a total of 645,000 total across all languages. The Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/) has 100,000 files as of May 24. I can't give you the actual number of unique images on the site as a whole, as there's quite a few duplicates floating around. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Definite article
Does anyone else tend to call this website The Wikipedia as opposed to Wikipedia. Perhaps a comment about usage of The should be added. 131.111.250.45 14:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)