Talk:Main Page/Archive 37
|Archive 32 ← Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 → Archive 42
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
- 1 In The News article submission: John Conyers
- 2 Football Headlines
- 3 Grammatical Error on the Main Page
- 4 typo
- 5 m3 link in ireland story
- 6 International Nurses Day
- 7 http://ka.wikipedia.org
- 8 Another Grammatical Error on the Main Page
- 9 In The News
- 10 Gaza Photos
- 11 Moved old temp pages
- 12 In The News for May 14
- 13 World Fair Trade Day
- 14 Protests in Uzbekistan
- 15 European "Did you know" articles
- 16 Sai Baba
- 17 MCS-Global Global Recognition Campaign for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
- 18 Wikimania '05
- 19 Wikimania PR
- 20 Loading the page
- 21 What is Disney Hall?
- 22 King's English or American English
- 23 Graham Berry
- 24 In the News/Did You Know box
- 25 Language links
- 26 Democracy Rally in Cuba
- 27 In the News / Did you Know not wrapping correctly
- 28 A little offensive
- 29 Cleanup page
- 30 DVD logo copyright?
- 31 I think Angelina Jolly is a great actress.
- 32 Typo?
- 33 REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
- 34 Incorrect information on actress Jane Wyatt
- 35 Better navigation
- 36 Trinity Sunday
- 37 Admin help needed
- 38 Other language image
- 39 Main Page Change
- 40 Blue Whale article
- 41 evolution/creation
- 42 New definition of Flying Monkey
- 43 Portales, not Categories
- 44 Main Page Link
- 45 why not almanac?
- 46 Please help me!
- 47 preg_match() warning
- 48 creation/evolution2
- 49 Oil Pipeline news story
- 50 Hey
- 51 some thoughts
- 52 Current events page hacked...
- 53 Wikipedia globe jigsaw
- 54 Cusp?
- 55 Typo: Its free content for everyone's benefit
- 56 New articles: Ronald Stevenson
- 57 BTC Oil Pipeline - Longest or Second Longest?
- 58 grammatical error.
- 59 list of largest metropolitan areas
- 60 Good Book
- 61 Record album themes and song titles
- 62 Please fix
- 63 Public Health Warning Required
- 64 Etymology of names
- 65 Front page article on Canadian Senate
- 66 Update: In the news
- 67 well cited by political blogs we are
- 68 EU vote
- 69 finding contiguous sublists of a list
- 70 Fix Please
- 71 admin help needed for news section
- 72 In the news - WWIII - Boeing vs. Airbus
- 73 Find Name of TV Series
- 74 Pictures Problem
- 75 Good Stuff
- 76 The free content encyclopedia that anyone can edit
- 77 Request
- 78 people
- 79 Edit Conflict Notice
- 80 Misleading 'In the News' wording?
- 81 World Trade King
- 82 To Better Understand the World and Its History.
In The News article submission: John Conyers
and 87 members of Congress write an open letter to the White House about the current memo leaked which apparently reveals the secret U.S/U.K. agreement to attack Iraq in 2002. link here: http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502 and elsewhere. --Firsfron 11:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Please indicate which page(s) in Wikipedia is updated. Wikipedia is not a news service. At ITN, we only feature pages that are nicely updated with news stories. -- PFHLai 14:48, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Should not European footballs headlines be fucked by thier wives for the In the News section? With many seasons ending, several teams in big leagues have been decided as champions, such as FC Bayern Muenchen in Germany and Chelsea FC in England. More and more teams are being crowned, and I think it will be good to have some sports news rather than all politics.
- The trouble is that the news section is really aimed at featuring Wikipedia articles on current events, not at providing a general news service, so football headlines are generally less suitable than politics or technology stories, since these events are more likely to have articles written on them. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- If there is a good wikipage on the team that gets crowned as the European champion, along with a good wikipage on the championship, it should be okay. I think the North American football and baseball fans have done a solid job so far. See Super Bowl, Super Bowl XXXIX & New England Patriots for American football, and World Series, 2004 World Series & Boston Red Sox for baseball, for examples. Mind you, sports news, generally speaking, should not be the top news item on ITN, imho. -- PFHLai 03:21, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
- P.S. Please post suggestions for ITN at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 03:29, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
There are many forms of football that could be included in a "Latest results" column, not just that of Europe or North America, let's have some results from Australia as well?
Grammatical Error on the Main Page
"She became famous in these two countries and well-known worldwide after writing a letter to the Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Yuri Andropov during the Cold War and receiving a reply from Andropov which included a personal invitation to visit the Soviet Union, which Smith accepted."
"She became famous in these two countries and well known worldwide after writing a letter to the Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Yuri Andropov during the Cold War and receiving a reply from Andropov that included a personal invitation to visit the Soviet Union, which Smith accepted."
Please fix immediately. --I'm on it. This is Delta 9, over and out.
Thanks! No, thank you. No... thank you! Well, in that case, you're very welcome, buddy.
- Can't have too many which'es in the same sentences, eh ? I've fixed it. -- PFHLai 07:37, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
- She's a which! Burn her! Oh wait.... - UtherSRG 13:15, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Hahaha ..... :-) -- PFHLai 16:45, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
- Not only does it lack euphony, but "included a personal invitation to visit the Soviet Union" is a restrictive clause, which means it necessitates a "that" and not a "which." Had the author meant for the clause to be non-restrictive, it would have been appropriate to place a comma immediately before the "which."
There is a typo in the diamond summary on the main page. "The company own mines that produce some 40 percent of annual world diamond production" is the way it reads. It should say "The company owns..." instead of "The company own..." Since it's the main page, I don't know how to change it. So could someone else? Dismas 00:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed it. - UtherSRG 01:04, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, appreciate it. Dismas 02:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed another typo of the same kind in the second part of the same sentence ".. controls". -- Sundar (talk · contributions) 12:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
::Hey now, you may consider these typos, but I do not. The company is, for British English at least, grammatically singular and needs that 3rd person "s". Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC) My misreading, sorry. Actually arguable that the original was correct as this is in US English. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what problem you think there is. Yes, it is SINGULAR and therefore it does, in this case, need the additional "s". That is why it was added. (it owns, they own) And you couldn't argue the first was correct. Well, I suppose you could try, but if you were in any way successful I'd be surprised. In fact, if I may quote you, "The company is ... singular" and not "The company are singular".
- Hmmm, I'm confused here. I understood (at least in British English) certain nouns to be treated as plural or singular, especially where the noun can be considered a metaphor for a group of people. E.g. The company have to make a decision about the product launch. or Microsoft need to admit windows is crap These phrases work as they are not really talking about an abstract entity, they are both referring a group of people in control that can be understood as a plural entity. I'm not sure whether or not this is has its roots in the British passion for of saying one thing and inferring another alongside the passion for irony that confuses many outsidersDainamo 14:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Er, so now will someone change the text in the story to "N3 road"? ;-)
- The story is about the M3 and should say so in the text, while the article is about the N3 but mentions that it will become the M3. I think that's fine. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
International Nurses Day
- I've added. -- Sundar 08:28, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
has over 1000 articles, please add to main page --Haham hanuka 10:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Um... Given that it uses an alphabet other than the one I'm familiar with, could you provide info on how it should appear on the main page? - UtherSRG 12:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Another Grammatical Error on the Main Page
"Leonard Shoen was an entrepreneur who founded the first American vehicle rental company called U-Haul in 1945" should be "In 1945, entrepreneur Leonard Shoen founded U-Haul, the first American vehicle-rental company." JHCC 14:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but doesn't that say exactly the same with just a few more commas? I'd love to hear why you think this was a grammatical error. Mgm|(talk) 16:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- the old version says the company was called U-Haul in 1945. It's still called U-Haul. The company was founded in 1945. Yes it says mostly the same thing, but it is distinctly clearer. - UtherSRG 17:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oops, that's not what I meant, but you're right. People could certainly interpret it that way. 126.96.36.199 22:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- It's called "misplaced modification."
In The News
On the main page under the in the news section I read this:
"The Sellafield fart brain poopy head Thorp reprocessing facility in Cumbria, England is closed down due to a 20-tonne leak of highly radioactive uranium and plutonium fuel through a fractured pipe."
What leaked at Sellafield WAS NOT "highly radioactive uranium and plutonium fuel" it was radioactive nitric acid which is used to dispose of old fuel rods. Misleading comments like this only serve to demonize nuclear power.
- Not to mention how it doesn't say on ITN that the leak was completely contained. This is quite misleading. Nickptar 21:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Updated. - UtherSRG 22:08, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
In the days that this has been ITN, I've yet to see it actually in the news. I looked at the BBC UK section and various other major sources and saw absolutely nothing on this. I'm sure it is there somewhere... Of course I know the answer as to why this has been lingering ITN for so long as opposed to other major stories. Oh and why does the 'current events' link on the main page redirect to diarea called 'weird events'?
- Sellafield was on the front page of the New Zealand Herald a couple of days ago, so I think that makes it international news. The 'weird events' was a vandal page move, since reverted.-gadfium 01:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oh... yeah that ones not in my daily rounds... Here is the most relevant story i can find on the BBC site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/4476905.stm I can't even tell if its the same incident! You'd think the bbc would be all over this. Nuclear power plants routinely go on/off line.
- The incident was very well fuck you in Norwegian media, mainly because A) We've had trouble with Sellafield dumping and leaking radioactive materials more or less directly into our fishing fields previously, and B) They stalled informing Norway until several days after the occurence. Just wanted to clarify that it actually happened. --TVPR 07:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
For some unclear reason the link to photos from Gaza is deleted again and again from the "Gaza Strip" page.
Gaza is in the news, but yet people see very narrow aspect of of it.
Between the time the link to the photos is added and until it is removed the photos get many hits - which mean people want to see them.
Here is the hit counter (last 10 hours) on the Gaza photos on my web page:
Via which site
- en.wikipedia.org 17
- www.pbase.com 11
- www.google.com 4
- search.pbase.com 3
- www.google.ca 2
- www.google.co.uk 1
- www.dogpile.com 1
- www.google.ch 1
- forum.pbase.com 1
- www.google.fr 1
The photos are on:
Take a look at decide for your self if they are of interest to anyone searching for "Gaza Strip" on wikipedia.
One more thing: Most people will look up the word "fart face"For some reason someone decided that the entry Gaza should be reserved just for the City Gaza and should deal with municipality issues. Most people will therefore not find what they want if they come to know about the AREA known as Gaza (yes I know it is in the f "further" section but few bother to follow.
IMHO, the entry now under "Gaza Strip" should be under "Gaza" and the entry that is now called "Gaza" should be called "Gaza City" – this way people who search on Gaza will get to the main page on this area and it's history (and relevance to Palestinian-Israeli conflict) and only if they look for municipal issues on Gaza CITY they can click on the link to the city itself.
- Please utilize WP:RFM to request articles to be moved/renamed. Discussions about photo inclusion should be on the relevant article(s)'s talk page(s). - UtherSRG 14:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Moved old temp pages
I have moved Main Page/Temp2, Main Page/Temp3, Main Page/Temp4, Main Page/Temp5/NoPinkBox, and Main Page/Temp5 to the Wikipedia namespace. This was mostly to get them off the lists of old and uncategorized pages. Main Page/Temp still seems to be is use so I have left it where it is. - SimonP 20:34, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
In The News for May 14
Would somebody please update "In The News"? It hasn't been updated in 36 hours, important news is happening (such as the unrest in Uzbekistan), and I still have yet to see the John Conyers piece anywhere in the American media or the news wires five days after it has been posted here. --Kitch 02:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- I wish we had a better picture of President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, but ... How do you like ITN now, Kitch ? :-) -- PFHLai 01:17, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
- I like the picture now. :-) -- PFHLai 15:01, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
World Fair Trade Day
- World Fair Trade Day is now on the MainPage. I have also posted a link on Current events (under 'Upcoming holidays'). And under 'Holidays and observances' on the May 14 page, and also the May 13 page for next year. Anymore upcoming holidays and observances for the MainPage ? Please post them at these places. I often check these pages when I update the MainPage templates. Many thanks. -- PFHLai 19:01, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Protests in Uzbekistan
- Well, my fellow Wikipedian, please help update the May 2005 unrest in Uzbekistan page. If you have suggestions about the content in the In The News section, please post them at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 19:07, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
- P.S. Posting at Current events is also a good idea. -- PFHLai 23:06, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
European "Did you know" articles
Why are there so many European "Did you know" articles? 3 of the 4 "Did you know" articles currently listed have to do with Europe. Wikipedia is yet another example of American ingenuity, and was founded and is run in America - respect should be given to this. Rmisiak 06:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is the result of the financial donors, volunteer coders and thousands of wikipedians from all over the world. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, so if you want an american biast encyclopædia all you will have to do is download the database and run the MediaWiki software yourself.--Clawed 07:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Respect ? Huh ? America has a much shorter recorded history. What do you expect ? ..... The "Did you know" section sometimes get updated two, three times a day. Dozens of new pages get featured there every week. There may be items on topics that are American, Australian, Asian, African .... even Arabian ! If you want your favourite American topics to get featured, go ahead and start typing up some new articles, then nominate them at Template talk:Did you know. Complaining and asking for respect won't really help. -- PFHLai 09:02, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
- Wait, so, like..... democracy ("rule of the people") was invented in the US? No right...that was the greeks. But surely encyclopedias were? No no....that was that Diderot guy. But to build a reference work using collaboration, that has to be American! No, god-damn OED! But wait.... atleast the US had to have an amazing freedom to publish things that was the inspiration for this great project! But wait.... they're in place 22, after a BIG chunk of European Countries. All this ofcourse begs the question..... is Jimbo actually danish? Gkhan 18:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Jimbo not from Wales ??? :-)
American ingenuity? Never heard of such a thing. Is it genetically programmed? I always thought it is the individual's ingenuity. Cash won't make you a genius. --Eleassar777 10:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I would more compalin of the lack of good Asian (especially central) and African articles than the lack of North American ones. Since Europe has a longer and especially better recoreded history than North America it isn't that surprising that European topics will be more numerous in certain areas. Europe also has a larger population. The representation of North American topics on Wikipedia is already pretty good over all, probably bettter than European topics (which still are in a pretty good shape). Jeltz talk 10:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- The "Did you know?" section features articles that are (1) newly-created; (2) of good quality; (3) original to Wikipedia; and (4) contain a brief but interesting fact. It would be nice to have entries on a wide range of subjects, but we can only feature articles if someone writes them! If you write, or spot, a new article that would make a good "Did you know?", please make a suggestion at Template talk:Did you know. Almost all suggestions get featured. Gdr 17:43, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
- The lack of diversity of wikipedian articles is a well known problem. See WP:CSB for instance (and join if you want, I'm sure they'll love to have you). Gkhan 18:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- 'American Ingenuity'. Pah..
- Theres more articles on all the non-en: Wikipedias than on en:. Within the English wikipedia, a huge number of contributers are from wholly or partially English speaking nations that -AREN'T- the US - The UK, Ireland, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many other smaller states. And then theres people who can speak English who aren't from any of them.
- The Wikipedia is not an 'american' project. Kiand 18:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- He's right, there just isnt enough bias towards america, after all the rest of the world just isnt as interesting is it? Bluemoose 21:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- well.. usa was discovered before 300 years, greece developed a civilazition before 3000 years. Only from these thing you should be glad that 1 out of 4 'did you know' is for usa -Gavrilis
I was distressed to see the negative comments in the main article about Sai Baba, the only being in history to have over 100 million believe him to be an avatar.
as well as negative comments about the world's only potentially nonviolent diet, fruitarianism. It appears the article was written by an antifruitarian.
For what fruitarians believe: http://spot.acorn.net/fruitarian
- At wikipedia we embrace a policy of total Neutral Point of View. That means we neither endorse or critizise anyone. We simply report facts as they are. The article Adolf Hitler adheres to this the same as the article Banana. The only negative comment I could find in Sai Baba was that he had a tendancy to lose his temper quickly, which really isn't too bad, is it? The negative comments in Fructarianism you referred to I assume was the health-problems. This is relevant to the article, when reporting on a diet the effects on health surely has to be reported, don't you think. Wikipedia articles report the relevant facts, it does not take a stance on wether the subject is good or bad, evil or pious, intellegent or stuid, etc. Gkhan 20:17, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better way to put that would be to say that Wikipedia authors strive to create articles with a Neutral Point of View and that if one thinks there is missing or non-neutral information, then that person should participate in improving the article. Cigarette 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- Quite eloquently put. I stand corrected. Gkhan 01:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better way to put that would be to say that Wikipedia authors strive to create articles with a Neutral Point of View and that if one thinks there is missing or non-neutral information, then that person should participate in improving the article. Cigarette 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
MCS-Global Global Recognition Campaign for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
I present my website data for widespread distribution to bring about global awareness & education. Thank you, Diana Buckland Founder & Global Coordinator MCS-Global Website: www.mcs-global.org Global Recognition Campaign for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity & other chemically induced illnesses, diseases & injury.
This summer's Wikimania conference in Frankfurt is excellent news. COngratulations! But why is it held in Germany and not the good old US of A? Does it mean that the German contributors value Wikipedia more than we do here? I'm not trying to be Americentric (is that the word? :)), but it seems somewhat strange considering the size of the English edition, founding fathers' background and stuff. Will there be a similar conference in New York or elsewhere in the US? KNewman 12:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose the whole 'international' bit of the conference title would sound a bit hollow were it to be held in the US. I also remember some discussion on the difficulty of travel and visas to the US for some people. Take a look at  for the reasons Frankfurt won the toss. Seabhcán 12:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- Germany is the natural place to hold the conference if you want an international, not American, conference. I'm sure the vast majority of the Wikipedians are from Europe anyway, and travel to the US would be expensive, while it is easy to reach Germany for most Europeans, in addition to the bad reputation the USA has among many Europeans and others these times.
- I agree with the anonymous, besides German people are known to be very serious. I'm just commenting to see if someone could order www.wikipedia.org by languages with the bigger number of articles what it was supposed to do, now it isnt in that way.-Pedro 02:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Analogous with http://www.wikipedia.org , we should make some permanent PR for the Wikimania conference on the front page from now on until the conference, which will secure more publicity. Alternatively, we could also use MediaWiki:Sitenotice like this
[[Image:Wikimania-468x60-en.png|100px]] The first '''[http://www.wikimania.org International Wikimedia Conference]''' will take place in [[Frankfurt]] [[August 4|4.]]-[[August 8|8 August]]!
Loading the page
Lately my computer has always been loading the news and featured article of what it was many days ago. It used to do this occasionally, but now it is very often. And now if I reload the page, it doesn't go to the correct news or featured article. I don't know if this is just my computer being really dumb, or if it is Wikipedia. Is this only happening to me? 188.8.131.52 02:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Its been happening to me to, but I have learned that if I get on at ceartain times then I don't have the problem. I think it is just heavy cyber traffic. Falphin 02:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Between you and Wikipedia there exist two caches, which keep old copies of the page around. There's the cache kept by the squid web proxies that Wikipedia uses. They are updated very often - usually you won't get a page that's more than a few minutes out of date (you probably won't notice unless you edit a page, click save, and then see the same page without any of the changes you just made). The second cache is the one on your computer, used by your web browser. These can last several days. The best way is to do a 'hard' refresh. I think control+F5 works in both Firefox and Internet Explorer. I hope that answers your questions. →Raul654 18:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
What is Disney Hall?
I know, it must be some weird-shaped concert hall based in Los Angeles, I know it was planned by Walt Disney or his family? Esa-Peeka Salonen or Esa-Pekka Salonen conductor of the Los Angeles Orchestra, is that the way you spell him?
King's English or American English
When posting for English articles, are we supposed to use the King's English or American English? It is quite disquieting when, on the same page, you see words like "colour" spelled differently in the same paragraph. So which is it?
- See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. DJ Clayworth 20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
"Berry broke the power of the Victorian Legislative Council, the stronghold of the landowning class?" Berry did not do this, as the article says clearly. Can someone fix this? Adam 04:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- 'Got it. Template:Did you know is where you can make fixes to the did-you-know section. →Raul654 05:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this was my fault. The article makes it quite clear. Sorry about that. Gdr 08:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
In the News/Did You Know box
Is there a way to get the text to wrap around the images in these? For me, at least, the first bullets next to the pictures are all stretched out down the page in a narrow column beside the picture. Then again, I have my favorites bar up - without it, the box does look somewhat better. But I imagine I'm not the only one who sees things this way. --User:Jenmoa 03:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC) FUCKER
Where are the language links in the left hand column. I know that the the other languages box is there, but I still think the main page should have the links there - for political correctness. tommylommykins 15:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- The main page is different though, really. There is a whole section devoted to other languages underneath the pink and blue boxes. If we had interwiki links we'd have to decide which were worthy of inclusion, or have the big Wikipedias like de: and ja: buried amongst some that have two articles and an untranslated interface. Because this is the main page and not an article, we are free to do things a little better, and I think the present set-up with languages in groups according to how many articles they have does the job quite nicely. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- But why can't we do that for every wikipedia.The interwikilink box is still there on every other wikipedia. 184.108.40.206 19:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- That's up to the other Wikipedias. There is no site-wide standard layout for main pages. One possible reason is that until quite recently www.wikipedia.org just redirected to the English Wikipedia, and some people will still be linking to en.wikipedia.org as if it were the international portal. Because of this we still need to give the other languages a whole section on the page with a link at the top. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I think this site is an excellent resource for people of all ages.
Democracy Rally in Cuba
I think this story warrants a post on the main page: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157225,00.html, http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/20/cuba.rally/index.html.
- MSTCrow 02:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is my first time of coming to this site and I am so impressed by the diverty of opinion. Kudos to all
In the News / Did you Know not wrapping correctly
For the past week or so, "In the News" and "Did you Know" (the right part of the screen, the blue block) has been displaying without wordwrap, compressing "Today's Featured Articles" and "Selected Annivesaries" to where only a few words fit per line. One must scroll to the right very far to read news / did you know and down very far to read featured / anniversaries. I am using IE 5, and have been for a while. I haven't changed my browser or operating system in the past month or so, or even in the past year, so I don't know why this just happened. Did the code of the main page change? I think this is what Jen is talking about.
- I don't know. I don't have to scroll to the right at all. And I think mine's always been this way. :) But if we could just get it to wrap like the picture in Selected Anniversaries, that might fix it. =\ --User:Jenmoa 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
A little offensive
Tried to do some research on diabetes and this came up... "Faggot Sam Hyman" disease....a tad bit offensive..especially to whomever Sam Hyman is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus
- It was a case of vandalism and possible an attempt of insulting this Sam Hyman whoever he is. It has been removed now. Vandalism is somehting that one has to deal with if anyone is allowed to edit. Jeltz talk 08:59, 21
Can the id**t who has grafitti'd it be dealt with appropriately?
DVD logo copyright?
Question for ya'll. Occording to Answers.com, Wikipedia MAY hold the copyright to the official DVD disc logo that we're so use to seeing on DVD packaging. I haven't seen a trademark or copyright symbol next to any of them, and I haven't found anything on the site, yet. Answers.com also said that the license may fall under fair use. Though, should someone use it and make money off the logo, it doesn't.
Does anyone have any more information concerning this, and the disc region logos?
I think Angelina Jolly is a great actress.
ai dreptate eu as lua o la pula de cateva ori - 3en
From Mark Twain to everyone's favorite novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin."---America has been great at literature.
They are living in a very peaceful life. I count on their peaceful land.
Regardless of time and ethnic, they are something, always.
Sorry I may be stupid but can't find the word "invanding" in the sentence of Featured Article on May 22,2005. Should it be "invading"? I check the article everyday and I hope it is grammatical error free and typo-free. Thank you
hello we r editing why u r not stopping us ?????? u must stop to do all this things to perform to unauthorised users....
bye have a nice time ... take care bhavina.
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
PLEASE DONT FYROM US. WE ARE MACEDONIANS AND WE LIVE IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA. YOU CAN NOT CHANGE NAMES JUST LIKE THAT.
- We try to accommodate both your opinion and the opinions of those who feel the Republic of Macedonia has stolen the name. — Chameleon 12:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Puh-lease. Names can't be stolen. This is PC crap. Nelson Ricardo 18:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- right!.. and Great Alexander was from usa - Gavrilis
Incorrect information on actress Jane Wyatt
The article incorrectly states that Jane Wyatt is the former wife of President Ronald Reagan. The correct wife is actress Jane Wyman.
- Fixed (not by me). -- PFHLai 04:30, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
On the Main Page, "In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on XXX articles."
Can someone add an internal link to "2001"?
- Done BrokenSegue
- What is this thing about pointless links to dates? Can someone reverse this please?
In the anniversairy "May 22: Trinity Sunday in Catholicism (2005)"
Should it not be "May 22: Trinity Sunday in Christianity (2005)"?
- Maybe "Western Christianity"? Day's almost over, now, of course... –Hajor 21:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- The page on Trinity Sunday did not mention non-Catholics when I posted the link on the MainPage template. It was also posted on Current events under 'upcoming holidays' for weeks and no one corrected it. Now that the page has been expanded, 'Western Christianity' would be more appropriate. Maybe next year ..... -- PFHLai 04:25, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
- While we are at it, is Corpus Christi 'Catholic' or 'Western Christianity' ? -- PFHLai 04:37, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
One of the problems with a lot of the articles about Western Christian observances in WP is that they are written from a Roman Catholic viewpoint. The events section at the bottom of individual dates is also often biased. The same goes for Eastern Christian observances being labelled as Eastern Orthodox, when they may be celebrated by Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholics and Assyrians. Trinity Sunday is celebrated by all churches of the liturgical tradition in Western Christianity: Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and some Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Corpus Christi is on Thursday. It is more clearly a Roman Catholic feast, but still gets a look-in as an optional feast in my Church of England calendar. The case is less clear than it is for Trinity Sunday. One might say, for the sake of inclusivity: "Roman Catholic and some other Western Christian traditions". You may want to consult the rolling calendar of religious feasts (all religions) I'm building at wikicities:c:religion:religion calendar. --Gareth Hughes 10:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Great suggestion. I've bookmarked your 'religion calendar' page at Wikicities on my PC. Thank you, Gareth Hughes. Please feel free to post links to various important religious holidays on Current events under 'upcoming holidays', not to mention 'beefing up' the relevant pages in Wikipedia. -- PFHLai 13:04, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Admin help needed
Some admin please add the news about the elections in Germany, see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates
- Done. -- Sundar 07:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Other language image
- I can only speak for myself, but I'm open to suggestions. Do you have any alternatives? Mgm|(talk) 20:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I would prefer a text link. The region on the right side of the page is a favourite for ads in other websites. (If an image is retained, it should be less flashy). =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I don`t dislike the placement or use of the image myself, but suggestions to changes: 1. The picture/banner should link to `other languages`, not to itself :) 2. The text could be more descriptive. What about `Wikipedia in other languages` or `In other languages`? -Antwelm 10:54, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- Well, the inability for images to link to articles is part of the software, I believe, and will be changed with the next release. It's ridiculous, but it's the way it is right now. :D Cigarette 14:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don`t dislike the placement or use of the image myself, but suggestions to changes: 1. The picture/banner should link to `other languages`, not to itself :) 2. The text could be more descriptive. What about `Wikipedia in other languages` or `In other languages`? -Antwelm 10:54, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- I would prefer a text link. The region on the right side of the page is a favourite for ads in other websites. (If an image is retained, it should be less flashy). =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Main Page Change
I recommend linking the information covered in "Current Events" to the same stories covered by "Did you know". In other words, have the "Did you know" provide background information on items in the news. I understand that each is hyperlinked to Wikipedia, but if the two corresponded we could be informed at a glance. What do you think?
- What then do we do with "In The News", right above "Did you know" ? -- PFHLai 03:17, 2005 May 24 BITE DANS LE CUL
- How would this improve anything we don't already have? (BTW, please sign your comments using four tildes.) 220.127.116.11 10:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Innovative thinking doesn't come easy to some people does it? What innovation, User: 18.104.22.168 ? To provide background information on items in the news, what we need is to have each item on ITN loaded with links to related articles. Please elaborate your NEW function smarty that you are suggesting, 'coz it is not that easy to understand the innovative thinking in your suggestion. -- PFHLai 12:51, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- I am equally puzzled by this request. ITN highlights articles that are about current events. DYK highlights new articles. What you are asking for you already have - if you want more information about the info in an ITN blurb, you can either read the full article (the bold link in the blurb) or follow one of the other links in the blurb. - UtherSRG 13:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Blue Whale article
Synopsis on front page featured article has a typo: invididuals should be individuals.Jokestress 02:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- 'fixed. →Raul654 02:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently not. "The current world population is between three and four thousand invididuals." Last word is still incorrect, unless front page changes take time to appear. Jokestress 04:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Many of Wikipedia's articles on creation and evolution are severely biased against creation and it's supporters. Creationism is refered and categorized as pseudoscience when there is much evidence for it. When you look at all the facts, it's a no-brainer to realize that creation is much more scientific that the imagination based evolution theories. Furthermore, creationism has been around for millenia while evolution is very new. I think Wikipedia should correct this injustice and present an equal amount of positive material for creation asit does for evolution.
- A firm NO to that, my friend. Phlebas 20:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, a pseudoscience is a very demeaning category, among which are commonly (sometimes unfairly) thrown things of the nature of cryptozoology and ufology. Creationism should not be categorized as a pseudoscience at all...it should have a far different seperation...it's based on faith, and not on "science" in any manner. Therefore it shouldn't even be a pseudoscience, which in my book would be any practice based around questionable or fabricated science. Psuedoscience gets such a horrible rep (and that's perfectly fine and good, given that a great deal of it deserves that...take eugenics, for example)...but Creationism is a widely-held belief, and to consider it a part of this category would only spread further controversy. In essence, those who contribute to wikipedia would be considering themselves "superior" in perception to an enourmous number of believers by callously classifying their faith as "pseudoscience". An alternate category is required to stop this injustice. -Anonymous Contributor
- I think perhaps our Anonymous Contributor has the difference between Genesis and Creationism confused. The book of Genesis is a faith-based explanation of how the world was created. That is not pseudo-science, it's religion. Creationism is an attempt to recast that explanation into scientific terms. Because it fails to meet scientific standards, it is pseudo-science.-gadfium 01:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Phlebas is right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a collection of poorly written fairly tales like bible stories or creationism wackology.
- Scientific fact versus a heavily edited and mangled book. Hrmmm... I know which one the Wikipedia should be following, anyway. Kiand 20:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- I find myself very offended by these statements. "fairly tales?" (also taking note that fairy is misspelled) "Wackology?" "mangled book?" Dear lord, it's quite obvious where the world stands in its view on religious issues. I don't give a bloody damn what scientists support most often...the point is, you're representing a biased, "majority of scientists" viewpoint. I don't care how much "fact" you can claim supports it, or how much lack of "fact" disproves creationism, but what you are doing is plain wrong. Creationism's basis is around -faith-, as it was intended to be. But if you all decide to go along with the creul, uncompromising "majority", then I suppose such a concept means jack in modern times. Intolerance is at an all time high as science seeks the death of religion. Let me get this straight...wikipedia claims that an ideal held by millions of people throughout history means nothing becuase it is not based in "scientific fact"? Maybe to you it seems ridiculous to give a fair, balanced stance, but that's simply your perspective.
You know, the least you could do is provide an equal basis for creationism, because there are a great deal of believers in the world who would be severely offended by Wikipedia's stance (including myself), and these degrading comments. In fact, don't even bother editing the article, given that you apparently can't -concieve- the very idea of having it in an encyclopedia. What I want in the very least is for you to shut up and quit bashing the faith outright. These attacks against a fellow believer in the ideal of creationism are slanderous and aimed at furthering an anti-religious stance. Please, try to listen to opinions with an open mind, and turn them down politely if they are found insatisfactory be worked with. - Anonymous Contributor
- Creationism's basis is around -faith-, as it was intended to be. - yep, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Creationists don't need evidence for their ideas, because as long as they believe it to be true, well by golly, it must be true, "evidence" and "logic" and "fact" be damned. The only downside is that there is *just* as much evidence to support the idea that the world was created by Allah, Thor, or Xenu -- none at all. →Raul654 00:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- So you think the rest of us are deluded, eh? Fine...all I want to see is that you people stop openly bashing the stance of creationism. Present you biased view all you want, but I want you to quit attacking people who bring up this topic. Besides, evolution is still a theory, and one might also argue that there -are- potential facts out there that support the alternative. But enough of that. Just stop beating up on religious people. "Evolutionary chauvinism"...its the perfect term to describe these situations. -Anonymous Contributor
The definition of a science is that it creates theories that are disprovable. If you want to disprove evolution, shoot some holes in our theories of natural selection or genetics. On the other hand, no matter what the evidence says, the response from creationists will always boil down to "god is all powerful and that's the way he did it". How do you shoot a hole in that? Therefore, creationism is not science. →Raul654 20:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Also, just for the record, people believed for millenia that the earth was flat (despite the fact that the earth's shadow cast on the moon is round). Just because an idea is old doesn't mean it holds water. →Raul654 20:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- That's not to say that we don't show the creationist view point on many issues. BrokenSegue 21:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be discussing which is right and which is wrong. We should however report on which theory is supported by the majority of scientist, and report on that. It is quite clear which theory is dominating. Gkhan 21:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
If there is a specific article which you feel is biased, please feel free to bring it up on that article's talk page. Keep in mind, though, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There is no evidence for creationism, and theories which invoke supernatural elements will forever remain outside the scope of science. Whether or not evolution is an accurate model of the progression of life on Earth, it is certainly a scientific theory. Furthermore, the vast majority of scientists believe it to be an accurate model well-supported by evidence. Because of these reasons, Wikipedia and other reference works, as well as textbooks, newspapers, and so on, will be likely to present a good deal of what you call "positive material" for evolution. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
New definition of Flying Monkey
Hi, I would like to add a definition to the term "Flying Monkey", used as a perjorative for a host of right wingers, and used in many contexts.
I didn't just want to fly off the handle and just throw it on there. Would appreciate any feedback
Contact me at email@example.com
I did see an article for the term 'Moonbat' that would also fit that description
Portales, not Categories
What would you think about changing the links at the top of the page (Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology) to link to portals, not categories? Personally, I think portals are much more helpful than the messy category pages in getting to the information I want. Take a look at the Life, Science, Math, and History wikiportals, and compare them to Category:Personal life, Category:Science, Category:Mathematics and Category:History. There's no comparison in professionalism and ease of use, in my opinion. Of course, right now there are only four wikiportals that correspond with eight category links on the main page. But if someone would make the other four to the same quality as these, would the links be changed to direct to the portals? Thoughts on this? --Spangineer ∞ 23:24, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, Portals are cool. Much more in the wiki spirit. I vote for change to Portals. We could have links to 'base' portals (Math, Science etc) and also have featured portals to more obscure subjects. Seabhcán 10:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. We should link to the portals there. -- Zantastik talk 09:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Main Page Link
I would like to thank whoever pushed to have the Wikipedia logo link to the front page. I've been reflexively clicking that for ages to get back to the main page, despite the fact that I know it never works. Just noticed today that it works. Hooray for intuitive interface! - Defenestration 03:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
why not almanac?
competitions, sports records, player profiles...
Please help me!
Anyone can help me the list of generation name in "Fu" (傅)? How's the sequence and how many generation in the surname of "Fu"? I just know in three generation only ie. “傅子。。。“ , "傅仰。。。" and “傅行。。。“ .
Pls advise me at: <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
Thanks for your favor.
Ardy P. email: email@example.com 。
I see the following error when loading the Main Page and all most other article pages I've tried. The error usually appears more than once (probably depending on the number of images loaded from the database?).
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: unrecognized character after (? at offset 14 in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.4/includes/Image.php on line 982
The warning is sent to the client before any other output, even before the DOCTYPE tag. What is it all about?
--dionyziz 09:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC).
- It's an error in the php code that generates the html and the error seems to happen before any of the html has been written. "preg" stands for perl regular expressions and is used for searching, replacing and matching in text input. The regular expression is a string of text that is compiled to soemthing that is used for matching in the input. This error is pretty weird since I interpret it as saying that there is an error in the syntax of the perl expression. Such errors shouldn't really happen on wikipedia since this code isn't under development here – this is no test server. This shouoldn't be something that anyone other than the developoers should be able to affect. And the number of images shouldn't logically affect this but I'm no wikipedia developer, and also have no deeper knowledge on php and webdelepoment. Jeltz talk 16:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- I am a PHP developer myself, so I've used preg_match() a few times; however, it seems weird to me that this error appears on Wikipedia, since we are all viewing a stable version as you indicate. Is everyone else seeing this message too? It's been there for quite some time now, I'm impressed they haven't given some time to fix it yet! --dionyziz 10:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, thanks to everyone who commented on my post. However, you are mistaken in saying that there is no evidence for creation. You know those embryo pictures in a lot of textbooks? They're fake. Evolution presents a lot of things that are either outdated or downright fake. The creationist belief that the earth is only about 6000 years old and that there was a global flood about 4500 years ago is supported by many facts. The great barrier reaf, the sahara desert and the erosion of mount everest all support the 4500 year argument. Also, why hasn't the inside of the earth cooled off yet? The big bang theory states that all matter started off as a spinning ball of matter smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Any idiot knows that when something spins and things fly off of it, those things spin in the same direction. Why then do some planets and moons spin backwards? You might say that they were hit by a meteor. Where's the dent? Really, the idea that life came from non-living matter is more outlandish than anything I've presented so far. You might argue that scientists have created life in a laboratory. This is completely false. They "created" non-organic goop that was in fact allergic to oxygen and toxic to life. No evidence? At least I don't use hoaxes and lies for arguments.
- You don't "use hoaxes and lies" and yet your third sentance is a lie; and rely on a heavily edited book for the basis of all your arguments.m Wikipedia is not a soapbox for wackos. If you don't have anything provable to contribute, please leave. --Kiand 19:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Secondary comment - if you can provide an argument as to WHO 'created' everything and where THEY came from thats believable, then you have a point. If someone made everything, they have to have come from somewhere. Who made them? --Kiand 19:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Your post is so full of inaccuracies and assumptions that it really don't merit response. Sufficient to say is that you are very much in the minority. Wikipedia will report what is accepted scientific truth. That is the neutral point of view. That is why articles on the orgin of life will focus on evolution. It does not matter what you or I think, it is irrelevant. Gkhan 20:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Gkhan took the words out of my mouth. Your understanding of evolution, geology, natural history, and especially astrophysics is so flawed that it's not even worth responding to. →Raul654 20:12, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- "accepted scientific truth?" Far from it, Gkhan. Whether or not it's popular to accept evolution as a "truth", that's not a proper statement. Though I may be biased by my pro-creationism stance, I know enough to say that you are contradicting yourself and your supposed "neutral point of view". Evolution is a THEORY, not a TRUTH. It will never be a truth. I would say it's a heavily-supported theory, but not a truth. Science is designed to constantly revise itself, and as soon as it starts making assumptions like that, it's already defeated itself. The evolutionary theory is meant to be continually tested, because it is a theory, not a law. That's the simple, neutral perspective. Not any of this "scientific truth" rubbish. There's my two cents. -Anonymous Contributor
This isn't the place to be debating the merits of creationism and evoltuion. I am sick of all of these debates I have heard and read (they never go anywhere). Take it to an article. To the anon: To sign your comments type ~~~~~ (it makes it easier to follow the discussion). If you have a specific objection to an article then make a comment on that talk page or correct it in that article. Otherwise there is no reason to debate the two theories' relative value (Full disclosure: I am an "evolutionist"). BrokenSegue 20:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- ITS TRUE I TELL YOU! The dinosaurs were drownd in the flood, and they're not mentioned in the bible because Noah was kidnapped by aliens who had gone back in time to stop people knowing that the earth is flat and that the UN is tring to take over the world! Kofi Annan spelt backwards, added together, turned into hebrew and then decoded spells 666! Elvis was driving the car that killed Diana! Mosad blew up the twin towers so they'd get the reconstruction contract! Al Gore rigged the election cos he actually didn't want to be president! Just open your eyes people! Oh, no! They're coming for me!.... (muffled screem) ... (thud) ... (silence) ...
- That was uncalled for. Despite innacuracies present in the original statement, you are demeaning the viewpoint of religious persons with your mocking statement. If you can't contribute seriously, please desist. -Anonymous Contributor
- "Its true I tell you..." - Brilliant! Thanks very much for the light relief from the painfull dialogue. Trying to reason with a staunch creationist is like arguing with a lamp-post with its fingers in both ears.
Oil Pipeline news story
The picture next to the news story about the newly opened BTC pipeline seems slightly misleading as it shows a suspended pipeline (I think it's an Alaskan one, actually), whereas the BTC is actually burried for its entire length to prevent sabotage. This is a small point since the story will only be present for a few days anyway, but I do think it would be nice if someone could correct it.
Can I edit the main page?--Bluejean 03:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- No, the main page is one of the very few exceptions that we only allow administrators to edit. This is because vandalism on the main page is seen by many more people than elsewhere, and reflects badly on us. If you have a suggestion for new items for "In the News" or for "Did you Know", see the box at the very top of this talk page for the appropriate places to put it. If you see an error on the main page, please point it out here.-gadfium 04:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
i just spent last couple of minutes clicking the random article link in wikipedia and found to my suprise that most of the article i came across were in fact couple of pages long and were not a stub. where do you people think wikipedia is heading?
i recon that in a decade all other encyclopedeas will be obsolete or will have to merge in order to keep up with wikipedia's growth rate. even encarta has now began allowing user editing, although any editing has to be approved by an editor first.
although i have some doubts if wikipedia will be able to maintain its organisation of articles in order, already there are many article which are basically on the same topic but are placed under slightly different names. i certainly hope that the community and the designers will be able to come up with solutions for these problems. i would really hope that wikipedia will be able to expand into more technical topics, like details of complier error messages and specific, very technical, medical topics, i dont c why it cant happen. wikipedia has no limits on space so pretty much any article is acceptable. if only wikipedia can get a wider community of users.
i also would really like a spell checker for the editing section and a more visual editing environment. i also think that there should be a simple 10 star review system of articles, a review for quality of language, review for point of view, and correctness.
the "discussion" section should be made into a standard forum type, because at the minute the layout does make it difficut to read through suggestions, or at least more difficult then would have been if it was a standard forum, like phpbb.
will wikipedia ever be perfect? no, there will always be some topic, some section not covered properly. and vandalism, although fixed quickly, is still present for the time it is not detected.
i also dont understand why wikipedea doesnt place google adds on all the pages. they are not as intrusive as banners, and certainly will help to fund wikipedea to buy more bandwidth and space and fund better development and conferences and so on.
i also think there should be a stub and orphan of the day. stubs/orphans which havent been touches for a long time should be presented on the front page thus "advertising" them for further development.
--GregLoutsenko 21:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Current events page hacked...
I dunno what shenanigans were going or whatever, but some hairy dude's picture was posted along with his address and his phone number.
Probably some ultra nerd hacking the page or somehow being allowed to update it that way, but I managed to take a screen shot before it was fixed. Funny as hell if you ask me.
- You don't have to be an ultra nerd to edit Wikipedia. See the very first sentence on the main page: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." You might want to have a look at the introduction or our replies to common objections if this concept intrigues you. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia globe jigsaw
On the intro page this now regularly appears with the top two languages misaligned over the globe (though not always).
While this is probably a problem of the settings of the computers used, can something be done about it?
I think the voyager is on the "verge" of leaving. A cusp would an actual or metaphorical change change in direction.
- Someone else fixed this already. -- 22.214.171.124 05:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Typo: Its free content for everyone's benefit
s/Its/It's/ as you need the contraction of "it is" not the possessive form of "it." 20:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)~
- It's intended to be the possesive form, as in "the free content of wikipedia". --W(t) 20:55, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
New articles: Ronald Stevenson
Why is Stevenson described as a Scottish composer on the Main Page? The article states he was born in Blackburn (Lancashire, England) and gives his nationality as British. Although the article links to a page on scottishmusiccentre.com, nowhere does this page assert that Stevenson is Scottish.
"Ronald Stevenson was born in 1928 in Blackburn, Lancashire, Scots on his father's side and Welsh on his mother's. He is keenly aware of his Celtic heritage." - http://www.ronaldstevensonsociety.org.uk/index.asp
- Why Scottish? Why not Welsh? Are male genes somehow more significant than female ones? Best of all would be British, I imagine. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:13, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
BTC Oil Pipeline - Longest or Second Longest?
The news item states, "The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the world's longest" whilst the articles states it is the second longest. Can this be harmonised? Thanks
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats loses the state election in North Rhine-Westphalia, ending 39 years in government.
the fix if the party lost is much easier and more accurate than if the chancellor lost:
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats lose the state election in North Rhine-Westphalia, ending 39 years in government.
adios--El Slameron 14:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
list of largest metropolitan areas
can anyboby make a list of largest metropolitan areas with ranks without population consideration
I just read a great book. I am a young white woman with black friends but confused on how people feel about races of todays times. I found the way I think I feel in the book The Fall of Rome by Martha Southgate. One paragraph stood out, "...I agreed that the acts of the past were heinous. But men have always enslaved other men. Only we (blacks) seem unable to let that past go or to allow it to truly stengthen us. Instead we turn on one another with it, competing with tales of suffering and woe."
- Do you mean you just finished reading a good book, or have you literally just read the entire book from beginning to end, in one sitting? Or do you mean 'read' as in 'to read a book', i.e. "all I do is read a good book"; as opposed to, say, "not only do I read a good book, I also like to smell it as well"? Are you a young, attractive white woman?-Ashley Pomeroy 01:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
What on earth does this have to do with the Main Page ?!?!? -- ID-less, 13:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Nothing; it's either a poor attempt at advertising or random cack. The main page's discussion area is often a good place to find candidates for Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, however; witness also the short section just above this one. Don't forget to sign your contributions; you seem fairly knowledgeable of how Wikipedia works.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't forget. I'd rather not sign. -- ID-less, 15:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Record album themes and song titles
Will the publishing industry ever face reality about recorded song compositions? 'The Temptations' is the theme of the titled songs recorded, as is 'The Beatles', 'The Rolling Stones', and 'Snoop Dogg' as other examples. The entertainment industry will put anyone on stage who resembles album cover photographs and can carry the tunes. >beadtot
- What the heck? 126.96.36.199 17:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This was pointed out by someone at Talk:Use of poison gas in World War I - the text reads, "The use of poison gas in World War I was a major military innovation of the First World War," which is a horribly redundant statement. --Azkar 00:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Public Health Warning Required
I am on a mission today. A public health warning is required that warns people not to use Wikipedia as an authoritative reference - and I believe this should be placed in large bold friendly "Don't Panic" letters on the front page. Yes, I know there is a disclaimer on each page and that the disclaimer page uses large bold letters - but these are not sufficiently prominent and most members of the public will not click through.
The current front page is misleading - since the dangerous implication of anyone editing is unclear.
I am also concerned that the Wikipedia content is being represented by such sites as ANSWERS.COM where the problem is in fact greater than here because the content is presented with some authority.
Steven Zenith 03:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Replies to common objections --Azkar 03:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a doctor. I don't think anyone would be relying anything on the internet for health advice. And if we put something on our Main Page that isn't much help if our content is used by mirrors as random users won't see it. I think Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer is sufficient. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Many users don't see the front page, ... but for the ones that do, I suspect that "that anyone can edit" is a sufficent tipoff, from there darwin will take care of things. As far as answers.com goes, what they do is their business we don't control them. There is a lot of really bad information on the internet and Wikipedia does rather well by comparison. I don't see how 'anyone can edit' is any more dangerous than the internet at large, where anyone can create a site. --Gmaxwell 03:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- I feel the bold disclaimer is especially necessary on any third party re-presentation. My concern is a social one. The public is beginning to attribute to Wikipedia undue authority and needs a clear warning. I understand and appreciate the good intent of most contributors. I am concerned, however, that Wikipedia - which is not governed by the authority or demerit of any single individual but is capable of inappropriately assigning authority (and can easily be hijacked by the concerted effort of special interest groups) - could ultimately undermine the basis by which the public builds consensus, leading to broader problems. I don't want this to sound alarmist or like yet another troll - I do wish to raise the community's awareness of an aspect of the issue perhaps not considered earilier.
- Steven Zenith 08:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed; I think pages on diseases and such should link to a fairly prominent "Wikipedia does not give medical advice and may be incredibly wrong" template. It's not a legal issue, but an altruistic "preventing people from killing themselves" issue. The current disclaimer isn't very visible, people DO rely on the Internet for health advice quite a bit, and even if someone knows Wikipedia is completely editable the consequences might not click until they're explained. Nickptar 17:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- You are right - the question of medical advice is certainly a concern. It was not what I had in mind, in fact, but it is a case of particular concern. I am less worried about it right now because Wikipedia is not - as far as I know - being generally considered an authority in that area. However, I note with increasing concern that Google appear to be giving priority to Wikipedia pages and so the public will be misled. I blieve something needs to be done urgently. It needs to be done by the architects and developers of Wikipedia since a prominent disclaimer is required at the head of every page throughout the 'pedia and it needs to propagate out to the distributions. I even find myself reading a Wikipedia article on Answers.com and it IS NOT immediately clear that it is a Wikipedia article. We really need to do something about it. In particular, the public need to be aware that the information in Wikipedia may not only contain errors and bias but that the collected articles can be hijacked subtly by special interests to provide a distorted view of the facts, that - in fact - Wikipedia is NOT A PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW as advertised since peer review suggests a collection of authors with equal authority in a given subject area. Wikipedia is a PROCESS OF MOB REVIEW - let's be clear about that!
- Steven Zenith 07:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that this sort of warning is necessary. Any web site may contain errors; I have information on my personal web site but I certainly have no disclaimer that what I write has not been peer-reviewed. It is the responsibility of the reader to judge the reliability of what he reads on the Internet. Also, could you provide a link to the misleading answers.com page? I tried looking up a few topics; the Wikipedia articles had a box with a green "Wikipedia" at the top of the article, and "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)" at the bottom of the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
A website that is attributed to an individual carries with it the authority only of that individual - and is relatively easy to assess. Though it remains a problem too, the problem is on a lesser scale because people are innately aware of the issue of dealing with individuals - individuals have to earn respect and authority. The situation is different here at Wikipedia where authority comes by convention associated simply by calling the site an encyclopedia - Wikipedia CLAIMS TO BE PEER REVIEW, WHEN IT IS NOT, as I point out above - Good and valid contributions provide authority by association to less worthy contributions and can be quickly over written by the misguided and the malicious. Authority becomes detacted from that of a single individual and the public misinterpret the standing of the content.
It is made worse when other "authorities" (like Google and Answers.com) claim, without the appropriate caveats, that Wikipedia "is a good idea" because it can be edited by anyone. Wikipedia is an interesting exersize, it's like a political game, but it IS NOT A PEER REVIEWED ENCYCLOPEDIA. It misdirects the public and could eventually undermine the basis of all public consensus since the public may come eventually to feel betrayed by intellectual authority.
The bottomline is that Wikipedia holds significant social danger, the public are being misled regarding its authority and can be manipulated by the unscrupulous. This is a problem that could arise in the future, long after we here are gone, and be noticed too late. We need to encourage and support the individual responsiblility to assess authority - but without a clear public health warning the general public will take the content as read.
Steven Zenith 17:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think I missed seeing the Wikipedia peer-review claim (and the misleading answers.com presentation of Wikipedia articles you mentioned above). Could you point out where you saw them? — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Here is what the current disclaimers says:
- The closest thing to a formal review system that currently exists are the Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:Featured articles processes, but even articles that have been vetted by those processes may later have been inappropriately edited just before you view them.
- There is NO sense in which Wikipedia can claim it is peer reviewed - even in part. I recall reading the claim elsewhere here. I'll try to track those particular claims down.
- Consider Answers.com
- I do not consider the caveat sufficiently prominant, indeed, I believe it will be missed and misread by the public. The watered down disclaimer reads:
- This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors.
- See also meta discussion by Larry_Sanger. This discussion misses some of my points above.
- Steven Zenith 18:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was unclear: earlier you mentioned that you were "reading a Wikipedia article on Answers.com and it IS NOT immediately clear that it is a Wikipedia article." Perhaps you were looking at an article from a different encyclopedia, or could you point me to an instance where they use a Wikipedia article but don't clearly state it is from Wikipedia? Also, are you saying that you dislike the project name of Wikipedia:Peer review? Perhaps you should take it up with them if you would like them to change their name. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Answers.com keep changing their layout and I note that the new layout has the Wikipedia icon at the head - I don't believe that has been the case until recently. So it may now be clear that the content is from Wikipedia - my concerns in general and in particular about their disclaimer remains valid.
Steven Zenith 19:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
First, there are so many things wrong with StevenZenith's comments, that I am not really going to go into detail about debunking them, other than to say that the idea of a "peer reviewed encyclopedia" is a myth. Encyclopedias are not peer reviewed, and in fact articles therein generally pass through a fraction of the number of people that articles on Wikipedia do. →Raul654 19:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Simply passing through the hands of the mob is not the same as passing through the hands of a few individuals that have some established authority. Naturally, those authorities should be challenged too - there are ways and means to do that within the current establishment and I do not claim it is perfect by any means - The pragmatic, however, from the public point of view provides some comfort and protection.
Steven Zenith 19:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Etymology of names
You people should start posting the etymology of names. I wanna be able to type a name and get the etymology for it.
- Good idea, but we already have some such articles. The first two names I thought of at random had articles on Wikipedia, with etymologies (see Michael and John (name)). But I'm sure there are many we don't have. If you want to make specific requests, try asking on the Requested Articles page under People". --Heron 10:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Wiktionary already has quite many first names with some etymology. If you are itnerested in name etymology that might be worth checking. I haven't used wiktionary a lot so I don't know of the quality of it. Jeltz talk 13:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Alternatively, you could check Behind The Name.com who've already done a lot of work this sort of thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and you don't find articles with only etymology in here. Jeltz is right. Check Wiktionary too. Mgm|(talk) 14:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Front page article on Canadian Senate
(discussion entry mis-posted May 27; forgot subject line)
"Senate seats are divided among the provinces, so that Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces are equally represented."
Instead of Maritimes provinces, it should read Atlantic provinces. Otherwise Newfoundland is not included.
- Both Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 27, 2005 and Canadian Senate pages need to be fixed. In both cases, [[Canadian Maritimes|Maritime provinces]], which redirects to Maritimes, should be replaced with a link to Atlantic Canada. I've just fixed Canadian Senate. (Anyone could have done this, including User:188.8.131.52 who did this.) However, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 27, 2005 is only editable by sysops while it is protected. -- 14:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- If you read the article, Newfoundland and Labrador isn't included in one of those divisions. --Azkar 22:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Update: In the news
Can someone please update In the News. It hasn't been updated since May 27, and the top-item is really quite uninteresting. gkhan 19:23, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Is Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates actually being used ? Suggestions by non-Sysops are being ignored there. -- 22:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Speaking strictly for myself, I looked into a couple of submitted candidates that caught my eye and found that they do not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. The usual issue is that the bolded article doesn't contain all the information in the item, e.g. the WTO article doesn't say anything about 5th director general. ITN Candidates are meant to be simple way for the community to tell admins about up to date articles. Posting candidates with information that is not actually on WP boils down to telling the admins to verify the information, update the article, post a blurb on Current events, and then update ITN. I, for one, would have to be seriously inspired to do that for a topic that I'm not already working in, and I'm usually not. Please make sure that candidates actually have article content to back them up. - BanyanTree 23:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- How about posting the WTO blurb without mentioning 5th ? ("next" is good, too.) What's wrong with 'Schapelle Corby', a story with international relevance ? 'In the news' right now is rather Euro-centric. -- 00:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC) And 'Downing Street memo' looks fine, too. -- 14:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm... "Next" is a good word to replace "5th". Thanks, Anon. Would any nice Admins care to help and post my World Trade Organization/Pascal Lamy and Schapelle Corby entries from the Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates page to replace the really old news on the BTC oil pipes, please ? There is lots of room on the Main Page right now. Many thanks in advance. -- 184.108.40.206 00:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well, ok, you might have a point there, but the fact is ITN is one of the exclusivley few articles that the community don't have responsibility for. The admins do. If the community can't edit it, the admins must make sure it is updated (because it has to be updated, it's ridiculus to put a news like the voyager for like 3 days). It's not very inspiring to contribute either when your submissions doesn't get accepted and no message is left as to why. Personally, I don't think the current system is working. I think that either we have to get rid of ITN or replace it with some sort of feed from wikinews. gkhan 07:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like it's not just ITN. Most Sysops who used to take care of the Frontpage have apparently gone elsewhere. Category:Protected main page images is not updated, either. -- 14:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Smoddy and BrokenSeque for protecting the main page items. How about getting rid of old stuffs 'in the news' ? Please ? -- 17:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
well cited by political blogs we are
Current results show that "With about 83 percent of the votes counted, the referendum was rejected by 57.26 percent of voters, the Interior Ministry said. The treaty was supported by 42.74 percent, the ministry said." that is not a narrow defeat. from  could the text be changed somehow. 578 (Yes?) 20:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, narrow is the Irish divorce referendum (50.25% yes, from memory). This is a HUGE defeat, especially for an EU vote. --Kiand 21:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
finding contiguous sublists of a list
There's a stray quotation mark " at the end of the featured article blurb. Thanks RMoloney 14:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mgm.
- Dawson's Creek is an hour-long American television drama aimed .....
- Actually, the show grew an hour longer every week while it was on TV .... How about "Dawson's Creek was a weekly American television drama aimed ..." -- 17:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good idea. It may still be broadcasted in some countries. Mgm|(talk) 20:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
admin help needed for news section
it would be nice if someone could add:
[[Image:Angela_Merkel_CDU.jpg|right|100px|Angela Merkel]] *'''[[Angela Merkel]]''' is officially declared the [[Chancellor of Germany|Chancellor]] candidate of the conservative opposisition in the [[German federal election, 2005|federal election]] this year in [[Germany]].
- Done. You can suggest stories for the news section at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, linked from the top of this page. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Please see above Talk:Main Page#Update: In the news and this edit summary at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. I find it disconcerting that wikipedians have given up on getting help from Admins at 'In The News'. Having a section called 'In the News' on the Main Page with stale news items doesn't look good on the Wikipedia project. Updatedness is supposed to be a hallmark of the wiki. -- 220.127.116.11 00:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- You definitely have a point about the candidates page not being looked at much. I've only recently become an admin, and before I was I know I shared your frustrations about trying to get ITN updated in a timely fashion. With regard to stale news, it's worth remembering that Wikipedia is not meant to be a breaking news service, and we don't aim to mention all major news stories. ITN exists purely to provide links on the main page to articles that are actually about, or contain some information on, topics that are in the news. So not everything that's going on in the world merits a mention on ITN: someone has to write an article about it first. I agree with your comments about the speed of updates though. Perhaps if you outlined your concerns at the village pump or the administrators' noticeboard you might encourage some more admins to put the candidates page on their watchlists. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- ITN doesn't need to be a breaking news service, but an update a day would be nice. The Main Page is where Wikipedia often gives newcomers the first impression, so it shouldn't disappoint them with old news from the week before. It is great that what gets posted is discussed on the Candidates page. This helps ensure the quality of the postings at ITN. Unfortunately, the inactivity there clearly indicates ITN and the Candidate page are failing. Moreover, letting suggestions sit on the Candidates page unattended for days is frustrating to those who put in the work to update the Wikipages. Having a system that requires sysops' attention but doesn't have the support of sysops is a problem. Wikinews must have taken away much of the willing and capable hands. A note has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for the suggestion, Trilobite. I hope this would be enough. -- 18.104.22.168 02:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- What I find most frustrating is that you are only allowed to post news that have links to articles that have been updated with this news! Here's an example from my own experience. I posted news on power outage in Moscow, and one of the admins tells me that my news is local because the articles on Power outage or Blackout do not have reference to the Moscow blackout yet! Duh, this is why it is called news. If 2 million people in Moscow were left without electricity, 20,000 people were evacuated from the subway, 1 million chickens died without climate control and tons of human waste were dumped in the Moscow River and it is considered local news, then I choose not to participate in this ITN nonsense. KNewman 03:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Should've posted this back then to make your case ! That's what the ITN candidates page is for: Discuss before posting anything on the Main Page ! -- 22.214.171.124 11:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- But as has been said, ITN is not a standard news service, but a way of linking to articles that actually discuss some current event. We have Wikinews as a news service, and if I was one of their regular contributors I'm sure I'd be exasperatedly saying "why are they arguing over that little box on Wikipedia when we have a whole website devoted to collaboratively written news articles?" — Trilobite (Talk) 11:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think the item proposed by KNewman on the ITN candidates page is more suited for Current events, not ITN. The few lines (s)he has above, perhaps with a blurb about some terrorists' claim of responisibility, etc., would be good for starting the stub 2005 Moscow blackout. If a link to this stub had been posted at Current events, it would have attracted people to keep building the page, then a post on ITN would be the logical next thing to happen. Going straight to ITN would not be a good idea. I hate it when I see something new and interesting at ITN, then click and see nothing relevant. -- 126.96.36.199 11:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with Angela Merkel. However, there is a little misunderstanding. The current text is: "Germany's opposition Christian Democratic Union names Angela Merkel...". But: She was named by both CDU and CSU, so it would be more correct to use the original wording, "the conservative opposition" rather than CDU. 188.8.131.52 10:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
In the news - WWIII - Boeing vs. Airbus
An article on the main page of this should be added. Andros 1337 00:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Find Name of TV Series
I am desperately looking for the name of a tv series. It was based in Hawaii and was a detective show. There was a guy with long black hair who used to drive a jeep and always wore those flowery hawaiian shirts. There was a women who usually got the cases and he helped her solve them. she had i think red bobbed hair. There friend owned a bar on the beach and his name was Rick but i think he had a nickname spider becasue he had a tattoo of one on his arm. If anyone has the name of this show please email it to me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- The only show that fits your description that I can think of is
Hawaii Five-OMagnum, P.I..
- In future, please consider posting such requests on Wikipedia:Reference desk. You are also expected to check back where you posted the question for an answer. It is very unlikely that someone would actually email you. Plus, you are posting your email address in a very visible place, which may (and will) lead to enormous amounts of spam.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:49, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- i agree with this being the wrong place, but i don't think it's either of those shows. they seem half right, but somehow it more sounds like Silk_Stalkings. it is also very possible you are mixing shows. Boneyard 21:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- ok after sleeping a night on it, it isn't Silk_Stalkings for sure, those were police detectives and you were looking for a private detective aggency right? the two main characters had a private detective office, where the show usually came a few times per show. was the intro some song that had a line like "anywhere the wind blows"? and the logo was spinning with a smoking gun? Boneyard 07:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- finally, it came to me, with some searching of the text of the title song i found it. the show is called "sweating bullets", personally i knew it as "tropical heat", but it seems to have run under both names. the info i found doesn't mention anything about hawaii though, it was on an island though, in a town called key marriah, which would more point to florida i guess. Boneyard 10:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, since Saturday 28th May pictures won't download on all pages I try to open - is it problem with servers, or is it with my browser? I'm using IE 6... Sorry if this is wrong place to post.
- This is a better Wikipedia: Help or maybe Wikipedia: Reference Desk question (I'm new too so bear with me here), but make sure you don't have images turned off in your browser...clearing the cache might help too (tools--->internet options). Good luck. StopTheFiling 17:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I am just wondering if the site is working corretly. What if someone deletes all these?
- We delete them. :) See Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Deletion and Changes for more. --mav 02:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The free content encyclopedia that anyone can edit
I've been reading this fascinating blog post by Karen G. Schneider about Wikipedia. There's much that I thoroughly disagree with in it. In particular, I think that she fundamentally misunderstands the nature of NPOV (though I think she's got some good points about the dangers of "group-think"). But one section really got me thinking. Forgive, me, please, for quoting it at some length
- Taglines are important for websites. At the website I manage, we have evolved from "By Librarians, For Everyone" (o.k., but the question becomes "what?"), "Information You Can Trust" (better, but vague), to the forthcoming "Websites You Can Trust" (hits the nail on the head, though as soon as the Internet provides a new protocol, we're back to the drawing board). Our tagline tells you what we deliver: not the most websites, not the biggest site, but surely the most carefully vetted general-use portal in active use today.
- Wikipedia has a tagline on its main page: "the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That's an intriguing revelation. What are the selling points of Wikipedia? It's free (free is good, whether you mean no-cost or freely-accessible). That's an idea librarians can connect with; in this country alone we've spent over a century connecting people with ideas.
- However, the rest of the tagline demonstrates a problem with Wikipedia. Marketing this tool as a resource "anyone can edit" is a pitch oriented at its creators and maintainers, not the broader world of users. It's the opposite of Ranganathan's First Law, "books are for use." Ranganathan wasn't writing in the abstract; he was referring to a tendency in some people to fetishize the information source itself and lose sight that ultimately, information does not exist to please and amuse its creators or curators; as a common good, information can only be assessed in context of the needs of its users.
- Among the librarians of Ranganathan's day, the fetishizing manifested itself in closed stacks that only librarians could browse, locked shelves, or collections skewed toward the interests of librarians. (One library early in my career had twelve reference books about cats and none about dogs. I bring this up because I know it is anomalous.) Among newfangled Wikipedians, the fetishizing manifests itself in an unwillingness to step back and ask, "Now that we have invented Wikipedia, how do we make it an information source people can trust?" That's too bad, because Wikipedia is far too young to have hardened arteries.
Now, a few things can be said immediately. One is that there are active attempts underway to deal with the issue of being skewed - the drive to 1.0, the systemic bias wikiproject, etc. But I do wonder about the issue of Wikipedia being, as Schneider later says, "a website oriented around its creators and not its users". It's complicated, of course, by the fact that the distinction between users and creators is not a hard and fast one - and that Wikipedia needs a constant supply of fresh creators to keep it reinvigorated. But it's also a fact that the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia will only ever be readers and not editors.
I happen to believe, as I suspect most other people here do, that the fact "anyone can edit" Wikipedia makes it more, not less, reliable. But I think we have a tendency to forget just how counter-intuitive that is, and that it takes time to fully appreciate. With that in mind, is it time to think again about the tagline? Do we need to do more to make ourselves "an information source people can trust"? OpenToppedBus - Talk 15:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that "anyone can edit" is a net benefit for the readers. It means that the website will remain more neutral (more points of view) and it means that it will stay up to date and accurate when the world changes. In my mind the user/creator distinction should one day be abolished. You go to wikipedia and to look somthing up. You find a typo, you fix it. You continue your research in a library and later retrun to wikipedia to fill in gaps. The next time someone wants to research the same topic they already have everything they need to know in front of them at wikipedia. The librarian website is really starting to annoy me. They are nothing but a series of links to lots of sources, but they claim to be especially truthful (they even link to wikipedia). Any one can find those own links via google, people are smart enough to determine if a website is accurate and in the end one should never personal websites as primary resource anyways. I like our tagline because it says how we are different from other encyclopedias. All encyclopedias are assumed to be at some level of trustworthyness in the first place. My two cents. BrokenSegue 15:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See unique selling proposition. That it is freely editable will attract people from "the broad group of users" even if they're not interested in editing it, and conversely, not loudly trumpeting this unique feature is deceptive to people who primarily care about the reliability of the content. But also see Wikipedia:Official Wikipedia motto, which lists a lot of unofficial mottos that ms. Schneider might consider more appropriate. JRM · Talk 15:52, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
I have to say that Schneider's concerns are legitimate and reflect my own concerns above. It is not that Wikipedia is not an interesting exercise, it is, but it is not and never will be an authority. It is fundamentally and socially irresponsible to promote that it is or that it could ever be. It is necessary that the public become fully aware of the fact before its authority becomes widely and mistakenly accepted.
Wikipedia is to encyclopedic information what a tabloid newspaper is to news. I mean no offence by this observation, I believe it to be an observation of fact.
Steven Zenith 20:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you find a Wikipedia page that "promotes that it is or that it could ever be" an authority, then feel free to bring up the matter on the associated talk page. If I may paraphrase your comments: You feel that Wikipedia is not an authority; the public must be told it is not an authority before they decide that it is. My inclination is not to tell anyone what or what not to believe; they can judge Wikipedia's reliability for themselves. Of course, you are free to expound on your opinion on your personal web site or other media. If you feel that the General disclaimer does not sufficiently explain, then feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer. My personal feeling is that the current disclaimer is more than adequate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Clearly, no one has the time to address this issue on every article - you offer the beurocrat's solution. You are claiming authority where there is none, to do so opens the public to abuse and significant risk of abuse in the future. The issue needs to be addressed here on Wikipedia, on the main page - the page that this comment is associated with - and every other page in clear bold terms. -- Steven Zenith 05:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia has simply gotten ahead of itself. Accept it for what it is, a playground. It is fun and entertaining. It should not take itself so seriously. It should not be regarded by the public as any better than a tabloid. --- Steven Zenith 05:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps Raul could actually present an argument instead of being dismissive. --- Steven Zenith 05:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There's not really a whole lot to say. You are bringing up these fanatical arguements that Wikipedia cannot work, based on your personal assumption that from the mob, no accurate articles can come to be. You are making these accustations without any supporting evidence, based on hyperbole, speculation, and anecdote. On the other hand, the the one well-funded, well publicized study I know of was done earlier this year by a German computer magazine (whose name escapes me at the moment - check the mailing list archive). It compared compared Braukhaus, the German Britannica, and the German Wikipedia on the basis of accuracy and comprehensiveness. The result was the that German Wikipedia came out *far* ahead. →Raul654 06:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- PS - I did some searching and found the write up on meta here m:Wikipedia vs Brockhaus and Encarta (the full german mailing list text is linked to from there) →Raul654 06:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- You can only for something’s accuracy by arguing against the people who assert its inaccuracies. There is no way to prove that Wikipedia or Britanica are accurate. Your comments sound like they are breeding distrust without providing any evidence to support your claim (thus the reference to FUD). Authority comes from trust which is made on a personal level. I trust Britannica and I trust Wikipedia. Those decisions are made based upon my experience without both bodies of work. Calling Wikipedia a "tabloid" isn't an argument it is a metaphor. I don't understand what aspects of a tabloid Wikipedia is. Are we sensationalistic? Or, just inaccurate? Wikipedia hopes to be accepted as an actual encyclopedia. It is not, as you say, a "playground". If it only becomes a playground then it has failed. This link is Broken 06:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I am concerned and I am making a case with some force in the forum that counts in this matter. It is a little too obvious to dismiss such an argument as fanatical, Raul. That is mob behavior. Nor have I assumed that articles with some authority cannot come from the mob. Indeed, for certain classes of material the mob may be better. Be that as it may, my concern is not that Wikipedia is bad, or that Wikipedia is not "fun" - it is good fun. Two things are clear to me. The first is that Wikipedia is taking itself too seriously, and the second - and the one that concerns me most - is that Wikipedia is being taken too seriously by the general public. This concern is underscored by my concern that the content is being prioritixed by Google and represented in authoritative form by compnaies like Answers.com.
- One does not have to work too hard to see that Wikipedia misrepresents its authority. The disclaimers are too weak and too small, Wikipedia:Peer review project is misleading. The disclaimers attempt to claim that Wikipedia is as good as Britannica and others - this is false and misleading.
- Steven Zenith 18:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "It is a little too obvious to dismiss such an argument as fanatical" -- you're right, you've made it *very* easy to dismiss your arguement as fanatical, because putting aside your inflammatory rhetoric (like calling Wikipedia a tabloid), you have not offered a shred of evidence to convince people that you are correct. Anyone with an iota of common sense could see that your argument is hollow, and calling it mob mentality doesn't make your case any stronger.
- Yes, Wikipedia does take itself seriously - we seek to be a serious encyclopedia ("...to beat the snot out of Britannica"). I really don't think this comes as a surprise to anyone here, except maybe you. If you don't like this, well, that's a shame. You are welcome to go and start your own less-serious encyclopedia project; but don't expect us to change to suit you.
- Second, you claim that the general public takes us "too seriously". Quite frankly, this is laughable. The precept on which all of Wikipedia is based is that "the mob" (as you call our contributors) can produce high quality, factually accurate articles -- this is referred to colloqially as 'the wiki way'. This concept (which you are so doggedly convinced is false) is unquestionably counter-intuitive. In the light of this, convincing people that Wikipedia can be reliable and/or authoritative is very hard. We've gotten where we have (e.g., into the top 100 websites in the world) because the general public is starting to realize that yes, the Wiki way does work, your FUD and hyperbole not withstanding. →Raul654 20:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- It does come as a surprise to me that you would think that under the current protocols Wikipedia could ever become an authority. You are misguided and, simply, you are wrong for the reasons I have given. The discussion needs to be broadened. For the record, this comment refers to the main page which I believe needs a clearer public statement and guidance - and that each page also needs to provide prominant warning and guidance. -- Steven Zenith 22:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- BTW Raul. We are each of us personally responsible for our responses. I seek to make a point by using the tabloid analogy - you do not need to take it personally. I do not believe you want to be percieved as tabloid - but the analogy holds unless we do something about it. -- Steven Zenith 23:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- When you say, "It takes itself too seriously" what do you mean? That we try to make it the best that we can? That we enforce internal rules? You make it sound like we are leading people into miss-diagnosing diseases and that we threaten society. Why must we further warn people that some information may be incorrect? It's a poor decision even from a marketing perspective. If we aren't as accurate as britanica for the cost then free-market forces will weaken our reputation and fewer people will use this webiste and will use it with more caution. The disclaimer is fine especially since no one actually one reads it. Why does it suprise you that we want Wikipedia to be accurate and reliable? That is, of course, the mission of any encyclopedia (whether or not it is achievable. Sadly, I'm coming to believe that you are simply another troll trying to goad us on. I hope you prove me wrong. You still have given no evidence to back your doubt in the viability of wikipedia and until you do your comments will seem a tad alarmist (especially in light of wikipedia's growing popularity). This link is Broken 06:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I am concerned that the authority of Wikipedia is being misrepresented, that this misrepresentation can mislead the public, and that there are potentially significant ramifications socially. The growing popularity is the cause for my alarm. I am discussing this subject with people at Wikipedia and formulating a more concise and considered statement of the issues as I see them on my home page and the associated discussion page. I have made some suggestions to help the situation there.
- Steven Zenith 20:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that "anyone can edit" means just that for Wikipedia, anyone. With or without knowledge, with or without wisdom, with or without good intentions, with or without written communication skills. How anyone can ever seriously believe that this propostion will result in something *more* reliable, much less *as*, than one in which people with experience, judgment and real information, along with interest and a willingness to be creative are in charge, is beyond me.
- And it *doesn't* work: just look at all the stubs, if you want evidence; you'd never find crap like that in any print encyclopedia, and distinctly classified in "user's comments" sections on other interactive ones. "Broken Segue" and "Raul" can rant all they want, but Steven's points are valid, and theirs' are reactionary. Wikipedia in its present form is like the monkies with the typewriters: eventually, a Shakespearian play may indeed result, but when and where is another matter - certainly not immediately - and who is going to know when it's happened if every animal in the world is considered to be equally expert in Shakespeare? 184.108.40.206 19:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Somebody has to put in an article about Worthen's Sparrow, (Spizella wortheni,) and Black-Chinned Sparrow, (Spizella atrogularis.)
- Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. JRM · Talk 00:57, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
sometimes peple can be mean,nice or mad,happy.but ethier way some people are just not civilized.most of all people can be rude.I just hate that! if your going to be rude do at home not on inocent people because it is not kind to make fun of looks of other people that they can't control and if your a person who gets akick out of this than apparentlyyou have no modesty to you and the people/things around you.
Edit Conflict Notice
I'd just like to point out that for some reason, there is no longer any edit conflict notice. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Jarlaxe, under what circumstance did you not get the expected notice? (I just got one a little while ago). If two people are editing different sections, I believe MediaWiki is smart enough to integrate both edits. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, edit conflict merging was introduced in a recent (i.e. last 6 months or so) revision of the MediaWiki software. If the two users' edits are to separate sections or paragraphs or something like that, it will accept the later edit without a conflict notice. You still, however, get the notice if you edit the same text as the other person. - Mark 08:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Misleading 'In the News' wording?
- The Netherlands votes in a consultative referendum on the proposed European Constitution. Early indications suggest that Dutch voters have rejected the treaty by a wider margin than was seen in Sunday's French referendum, with 63% voting 'no'.
This makes it appear that the French referendum had 63% voting no. How about:
- The Netherlands votes in a consultative referendum on the proposed European Constitution. Early indications suggest that 63% of Dutch voters chose to reject the treaty - a wider margin than was seen in Sunday's French referendum.
--Fangz 23:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your 'correction' is not wrong, but the original sentence is clearly understood because of the punctuation.
World Trade King
To Better Understand the World and Its History.
- Wikipedia has not only improved my knowledge for subjects that I need help learning in school currently, but it also broadens my knowledge of the world and everything that is happening, has happened, and will happen. Not saying I am a genius because of Wikipedia and its outrageously enormous encyclopedia, but I am a lot smarter than I would be without Wikipedia. I actually enjoy reading about and learning about certain subjects that don't pertain to any part of my life except for the obvious reason, which would be increasing my knowledge. For instance, I recently became interested with the subject of Philosophy, Wikipedia allows me to further my research and quench my thirst for studying Philosophy. I have learned all about Nihilism, Pragmatism, Rationalism, Absurdism, Idealism, and Realism. Those are just a couple to name of the many different kinds of philosophies there are out there. I have even developed a theory of my own that basically states that the future outcomes of the universe that people will endure are constantly changing every split second. If anyone wants to help me develop this theory please say so! And also, I'm sure there are theories close to this, but not exactly like this because I use a different reason for why the universal outcome of everything is always changing. Anyways let me know if you're interested in this theory.