This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
...the single-sentence paragraphs, the lack of flow within paragraphs, the broken connections between paragraphs, the weak large-scale architecture in the article, the huge number of references for a paltry amount of data, the lack of distinction between important and trivial facts.
Record a new audio file once it reaches FA standard
Is it worth having an FAQ like other heavy traffic articles? E.g. "Why should Wikipedia have an article on itself?"
The "sub-articles" that were split off from this article are badly in need of attention, as are several other related articles. The following all need work:
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted so long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."
This tag has been applied to the article recently without justification, and has been reverted back in, when removed, twice now.
My understanding, which may be faulty is that this has been added because Wikipedians have written the article. I'd like to know why it is there, and under what circumstances it could ever be removed.
These tags are used to indicate that changes are needed to an article. If there's no changes that could ever be made to remove it, then this is a form of disruption, WP:POINT.GliderMaven (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. I believe that the template applies to people that have a closer relationship to the subject that the average editor. I think that template would apply more to a case where the article was heavily edited by people like Jimmy Wales or members of the Wikimedia Foundation since they have a deeper connection to the subject.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed the edit which added the tag and wondered what the joke was. Its only WP:POINT appears to be a so-far indiscernible joke, so it is best removed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion also covers the same topic. --Chealer (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are now up to two reverts about the COI tag. From here on your decisions may be reviewed by admins to see if you are following reasonable steps for WP:Dispute resolution. Simply announcing your opinion that there is a COI doesn't push the discussion forward. The WP:Edit warring policy does apply to your reverts and could lead eventually to a block. If you think there is a COI that is harming the article, we expect you will try to figure out how to fix it and try to get support for a solution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. Unfortunately, I am not sure a solution exists. Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia will always be edited by Wikipedia editors. We could ask people who never edited Wikipedia whether they consider the article biased, but these people are very likely to lack information required to evaluate the article's neutrality. Suggestions welcome --Chealer (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Accurately summarising and reflecting reliable sources??? I heard that was a thing.
So apparently "Most academics, historians, teachers and journalists reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for being a mixture of truths, half truths, and some falsehoods"???
Maybe true, maybe isn't. So there was a survey that showed this? Oops no, it's just an opinion piece where it is stated without any evidence, in other words somebody made it up: 
Also "Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin." this one is harder to analyse, how notorious, how much spin, is the article on Riemann manifold implicated? But at least we're referencing a research paper: Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin. Oh.. wait.. that article says they took a random sample of history articles and found the articles gave good coverage and appeared accurate enough for K12 level... and this has been summarised down to "notoriously subject to manipulation and spin" in the lead.
But the final sentence says: "Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies have been repeatedly criticised by prominent scholarly sources for undermining freedom of thought and leading to false beliefs based on incomplete information." The first reference points to: Encyclopaedia Idiotica which is simply an opinion piece that only referenced a study where somebody looked at the most often accessed articles (e.g. the United States). The second reference is another opinion piece, which at best is a primary source of somebody trying to add something to Wikipedia.
At this point I got bored. In every case I found that it was either an opinion piece, contained multiple anecdotes, or the text associated with it was virtually the opposite of the general thrust of the source; it had been cherry-picked.
Hey, is it even possible that Wikipedia isn't a heap of crap and that's why people use it? Wouldn't it be strange if the studies that selected articles by unbiased means and analysed them found that the articles are not perfect, but on the whole pretty good? Because.... that's what they find. Opinion pieces where you collect a shopping list of all the bad things that Wikipedia was ever involved in are not reliable sources. Within reason, I'm going to systematically remove this kind of rubbish from at least the lead as best I can.GliderMaven (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@GliderMaven: I know. That stupid article and whoever selectively migrated that junk from that other article, as someone else complained about above on this Talk page, was a big bunch of "cool story, bro". I started copy editing some, and then I realized that the article had been cross-contaminated from another sabotaged source. But I just gave up. Which sucks. This is the type of article that should probably demands moderation by reputation, as I believe all of Wikipedia should have. These people are literally creating a tautological self-defeating prophecy. Thank you for trying. — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 17:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My limited experience is that the young (students) generally use Wikipedia for their projects, even reading it on their laptops in class, whether or not their professors endorse such usage. So it appears that some instructors do endorse it and some don't. I think that this encyclopedia would not be so widely read, as adjudged by its page-read counts, if it were a "heap of crap". The bottom line is that there will always be controversy as long as anybody and everybody can edit the encyclopedia. So I say "full speed ahead" to find reliable sources that lead to the truth about who uses and who endorses or rejects this encyclopedia. Joys! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 17:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is read by the masses but is rejected by the intelligentsia. I understand it hurts you to find this out. But this is the case. and should be made very clear as it is right now.Bigbaby23 (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, you state that as if it were true, and perhaps it is, or isn't. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. But you'll forgive me that Wikipedia needs to stick to what WP:RS's state, not what non RSs people such as yourself state.GliderMaven (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that RS's reflect that your initial statement, "rejected by the intelligentsia", is no longer entirely true. And "hurts" me? Not likely. When I started editing years ago, what you stated was much more true than it is today, and while I seldom toot my own horn, I feel that this project has had many editors like myself who are dedicated to improving this encyclopedia. Several years of that has led us to now, the present, a "gift" as E. Roosevelt told us. You would be better off living in the now, rather than in the past, as you seem to continue to embrace. Joys! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, pardon me, but i was not responding to you but to the OP. The OP in this thread is pseudo wikilawyering in order to push under the carpet the very clear and repetitive criticisms from very notable and leading scholarly sources. This lead has been here for quite some time. once in a while an editor feels he is being kicked in the gut with this criticism. But Wikipedia NPOV and Undue-Weight policies are exactly meant for this, to counter emotional and reactionary views. Bigbaby23 (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You are so pardoned, Bigbaby23, so perhaps you'll remember next time to indent your response in the correct place in the discussion. You haven't really responded to the OP's indications that the sources are not so useful anymore to this article. They may very well be dated opinions and perhaps should be kept and tagged as such, as "historical" opinions that apply less and less as time goes by. Feel free to continue to improve this article. I promise I won't be "hurt" by whatever you find.
Oh! and what the heck is "pseudo" wikilawyering? If it's "pseudo", then where's the problem? One either commits wikilawyering or one doesn't, correct? If you have such a "case" against the OP, then by all means, do make it. If not, then you must try to AGF. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you mentioned 'wikilawyering'. It's not wikilawyering in any way to say that we need to use good sources, and to report those sources well in an accurate and unbiased way. Whereas it absolutely is wikilawyering to choose bad sources, like opinion pieces, or to only cherry pick specific phrases out of otherwise good sources that only support a position that is being pushed, when that same source or sources by and large don't support that position. At best, that's false balance. We cannot allow false balance in this high visibility article, in either direction.GliderMaven (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are often valuable especially if the opinion comes from a respected and notable person or group. Yet again, opinions can change over time and become outdated, so the material becomes of historic value, but may not reflect the present situation. And nothing is so odorous as lurking POV material such as you described. It may cause severe damage to an article such as this and, when found, should be summarily squelched. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 08:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Up to a point they are indeed valuable, but the current situation is backwards. We have many, many pages of content under 'Criticism of Wikipedia' and one small section titled 'Academic studies'. Whereas Wikipedia is primarily an academic reference work, an article is not supposed to be mainly summarising newspaper articles like this, normal journalism is not NPOV.GliderMaven (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It should be '14 years ago' instead of '13 years ago' in the Launched Column. Mandeydarshan (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The template for it should automatically update tomorrow I believe. Stickee(talk) 05:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
A Wikimedia Foundation promotional video was recently added to the History section. This video reviews 2014 via Wikipedia. I removed it since the historical element (events of 2014) is about the history of the world, not about Wikipedia's history. The message it seems to convey about Wikipedia is that we covered 2014 well and that the Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 edition generated results.
This video will probably manage to motivate existing editors well, however I imagine the only thing about Wikipedia itself which the average viewer is likely to understand is that Wikipedia covers 2014 well. Considering that the source of this message is primary, I don't think this satisfies WP:Verifiability, and I really don't think this is worth 3 minutes of the viewer's time.
If some think this should be included anyway, we need some reflection on how the video can be properly integrated in the article. If no section is appropriate, this could go in the lead, but I consider this would give the video way too much prominence. --Chealer (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Chealer: You could try just saying that. Right? "This promotional video depicts Wikipedia's ability to summarize 2014. See (time code) for a key example." — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 06:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
But in any case whatsoever, stop needlessly deleting content and edit warring WP:3RR. You're presumptively overanalyzing a global generalization of everyone's perceptions. It's up to the user to decide whether they wanna watch a video, or how to manage their own time and whether 3 minutes is long or not, and we can refine points of interest. Thanks. — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 07:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid pointing a key example would not really help. First, it is virtually impossible for anyone to form an opinion on Wikipedia's "ability to summarize 2014" by looking at Wikipedia for 3 minutes. The video may suggest we have sufficient coverage, but does not allow to verify that the content is of good quality. It would be even harder to form an opinion by looking at just a portion of the video.
Moreover, the message from this video is unclear, and would be even harder to get without a full view. I recommend someone views entirely or not at all. The question is not whether 3 minutes is long or not. I have no problem with hour-long videos if they deliver corresponding value. The question is whether the cost/benefit ratio is appropriate, and in this case, I see no significant benefit to the viewer to cover for the cost of 3 minutes. I fail to understand what you mean by "we can refine points of interest". Readers will decide to watch or not based on the caption, so I have tweaked that, but the video's presence in an off-topic section is still misleading - readers expect to learn something on Wikipedia's history by viewing it. --Chealer (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Please could we add a section regarding the noted gender imbalance and anti-feminist tendencies that Wikipedia has demonstrated. This has been widely reported in the press recently; here are is some reference material: