From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Wikipedia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Wikipedia has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on August 25, 2014. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Wikipedia seeks consensus not truth[edit]

User:Michael0156, this may interest you. I got reverted for no specific policy reason. QuackGuru (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the reply, he should be quoting WP:POINT and WP:IINFO. By the way, it's a good idea to have a talk page.Forbidden User (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You haven't given a valid reason for deleting information about Wikipedia' most notable policy. Wikipedia runs on WP:CON or is it the loudest voices? This is a violation of WP:SUMMARY to delete it anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Do I need to gain WP:Con to add information about WP:Con?[2] I am still waiting for a rationale reason not to include information about Wikipedia's consensus. There is no Wikipedia policy more known than consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)



Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageGAN review
Result pending

This article has seen a substantial amount of edit warring recently, and the talk page is full of disputes. The infobox as I see it now has several {{fact}} and {{verification failed}} tags. This doesn't look like a GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The disputes would eventually settle; the tag bombs are by a single user, which is part of the edit-warring.Forbidden User (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I count at least five people with edits I would describe as "major reverts" - [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Even disregarding that, I can see several unsourced claims (eg: "They [rules on non-English Wikipedia] have since diverged to some extent", "However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair", "the number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the word is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar (Google, Facebook, YouTube) that they no longer need explanation and are on a par with such 20th-century words as hoovering or Coca-Cola"), "Hardware operations and support" has an "outdated" tag, the paragraph describing h2g2 is unsourced, and there are several other {{fact}} tags in the text. It might have met the GA criteria in 2006, but I don't think it does anymore without some substantial work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333. The article has too many unsourced claims and other issues to continue with GA status. Folklore1 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree- I have counted nine claims with CN templates, along with some others including clarify and not in citation given templates. In addition, there are a lot more unsourced/ unverified claims than that. Also, the Hardware operations and support section is outdated.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree Bigbaby23 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree-for such a long article, the 9 cn templates are few and far between. For such a popular topic, I'm surprised more information hasn't been scrutinized, but I'd expect some cn tags to come up since its GA nomination. They're likely easily fixable, and so minor that it shouldn't involve de-listing.--ɱ (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: did you not see that the page has issues other than the uncited claims?Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems like except your claim that a bit of information is outdated, there are no complaints here listing problems other than that there's some unsourced information.--ɱ (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Unless you think it was put there in bad faith, the presence of a section tag can generally be considered a deal breaker. Add the instability and unverifiable content, and that would probably be enough for me to quickfail this article if it was presented for a GA review now - wouldn't even bother putting it on hold. A GA should have zero citation needed tags at all times. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's your opinion, there's no rule saying a GA can't accumulate cn tags over time, and likely many will over time, after a certain amount of neglect from dedicated authors, but that doesn't mean that the article's quality has lowered down to remove its GA quality. Anyway, I'll stop arguing and perhaps just try to fix these minor problems everyone thinks are a big deal.--ɱ (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Only on Wikipedia would a group of authors want to bicker over problems on their own article rather want to than fix them.--ɱ (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ahem* - we should fix them, but until we do, the article should not have the GA flag, and it should go through a full re-review. That is all I am really getting at. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What the heck is that? And reassessments can and should involve active editing, otherwise probably every GAR would fail... I'm fixing your problems right now.--ɱ (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, but don't bother formatting my cites, I'm using Reflinks to do it.--ɱ (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it looks like we replaced all of the cn tags and/or removed unverifiable content. Are there further problems?--ɱ (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment while one or two "citation tags" alone wouldn't lead me to fail an article, lack of stability would receive an automatical fail from me without further review. If there were a large amount of such tags, I would fail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
But now there aren't any cn tags. Also, please tell me of this article instability you describe; I can't spot any. IP vandalism shouldn't be an obstacle from keeping an article a GA.--ɱ (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism indeed does not affect stability, though I was just making a general comment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist I concur with Ritchie, there's lots of content not supported with sources. As a general rule of thumb, the end of each paragraph should be cited (not counting those in lead). There are multiple uncited paragraphs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The Lead is blatantly in violation of Wikipedi'a guidelines in the Summary of the criticism section. By using WP:SYNTHESIS & WP:COAT it completely distorts and nullifies the vast Criticism section. It is Violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for the purpose of WP:Promotion. as OP linked to the differences (originally 6&7) [8], [9] (I'm the contributer of [9]) Bigbaby23 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Since I wrote the above ("there aren't any cn tags"), the replying user Snuggums decided to tag everything with a cn tag, which in my book is nothing but editing to make a WP:POINT. His disruptive edits ought to be reverted, as a start.--ɱ (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't exaggerate, ɱ- I didn't tag everything. While not every sentence needs a citation (WP:OVERCITE), every paragraph does need at least one reference except for lead sections (WP:LEADCITE) and plot sections of shows, books, movies, TV episodes, concerts, and such. WP:V is policy. As a general rule of thumb, it's best to have at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. You also do not WP:OWN the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Never said I did, but your idea of one ref per para is not a policy or even a guideline. Your edits appear to be merely disruptive and as opposition to my 'there's no cn tags to worry about' statement. Clearly you want this article delisted, and will mark it up as much as possible in order for that to happen.--ɱ (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it wasn't to go against your statement. Assuming good faith in others who mean well is policy per WP:AGF, and it offends me how you are openly assuming bad faith when all I wanted was to know what sources support certain statements and for such statements to be supported. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist - Far too many issues as stated above.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Then please go ahead and try to fix some of them. I've tried, although other users are creating and noting more problems to further the likelihood that this'll be delisted.--ɱ (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


The Community section of this article has a lot of commented-out text, visible only during edit mode. It doesn't look like something that actually belongs in the article. Is there some reason why this material had not been deleted? Folklore1 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I supposed the editors who disabled the content were hesitant or thought the content could be salvaged. In any case, the only interesting recyclable part I noticed must already be covered much better in History of Wikipedia. I thought there would be more, but I removed the few sentences I saw. --Chealer (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks consensus but not the truth[edit]

See diff that shows if you are loud enough you can delete text about the most notable policy on Wikipedia for no good reason. Is this the truth?

The skeptics thing seems not notable. User:TheRedPenOfDoom deleted this information from the Criticism article. See Wikipedia#Systemic bias. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, that is neither a policy nor a guideline. Talk in the talk page of the article concerned. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is strictly prohibited. You are quite far from it, but prolonged behaviour alike may constitute WP:Edit warring.Forbidden User (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, WP:IINFO says that we are not going to include everything verifiable. Please click into those policies and guidelines' links for more information. I personally hate shortcuts being written in capital letters (like WP:WTF) which sounds really like shouting. However, we have to adapt and understand that it is not shouting.Forbidden User (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is the most notable policy. QuackGuru is arguing with QuackGuru at this point. This is not about WP:IINFO. This is about WP:Con. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I know from the beginning that your information is about WP:Consensus. However, I'm citing WP:IINFO to tell you that when we decide whether an info should be included, we think more than WP:Verifiability. Isn't your content sitting well and all in the sub-article? Why are you raising this again?Forbidden User (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Content about consensus is not at all about random WP:IINFO. Per WP:SUMMARY, we summarise the content of the sub-article in the summary section here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I know about it. However, we already have criticism on WP:Consensus in the lead. If we repeat the much-the-same opinion it could be both redundant and POV. I do think others think so, given the repeated reverting. Perhaps you can wait for another person's opinion.Forbidden User (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
If we repeat the same text here it would be both redundant and a summary style per WP:SYNC. A summary is supposed to be redundant text that is a summary of the criticism lead. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is that we don't repeat criticism on WP:Consensus which is much the same twice. You should really wait for a third opinion.Forbidden User (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Surely BLP is not merely more notable and fundamnetal as a policy than consensus but it overrides consensus every time. otherwise BLP would be dead in the watewr as a group of editors could violate BLP, claiming consensus but there can be no consensus to override the rights of the living subjects we write about. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias[edit]

The paragraph beginning with "The study of systemic bias" mentions a field of study with "eight major" categories. Although there are citations to support statements about each individual category, "eight major" is unsupported. The actual field of study where the eight majors can be found is unclear, because the first sentence of the paragraph give a term with a long string of words, but doesn't link to an article where the entire collection can be found. Without sources to verify that first sentence and the "eight major", I'm not sure how to copy edit this paragraph. Would it hurt or improve the article to simply delete this paragraph? Folklore1 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to LawrencePrincipe, who has supplied the much needed citation. Folklore1 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to misrepresent Wikipedia's notability guidelines[edit]

Within the Content policies section of this article, notability in Wikipedia is presented as a policy, but this is not strictly true, since it is actually a guideline. Can this part of the article be paraphrased in a less confusing way? Jarble (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Community section scope[edit]

Shouldn't the level 2 sections "Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior" and "Dispute resolution" be included under "Community" since they are functions that spin out from community self-governance? If we were following summary style, it would appear that Community sits a level above the community's rules and the community's dispute resolution and that the community's self-governance should also appear within the Wikipedia community article. czar  17:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)