Talk:Wikipedia community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Organizations (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


My comment is by way of a general sense of this article which I am left feeling does not really consider users to be members of the "community". The inference seems to me to be that they are considered to be spectators, onlookers into the wiki "project". But is wiki a project for its editors or a resource for its readers?

There seems to me to be a highly vocal group who believe that wiki exists as a project for their editing aspirations. I imagine though that in terms of the number of hits and time spent viewing its pages its use is overwhelmingly from those who see wiki as an information resource (and one in a great part of extremely high quality). Users give wiki legitimacy by reading it and the former are validated by creating it. These are two halves of the same coin yet it seems to me that discussions, in this article and in general, focus more on the rights and aspirations of editors than on those of users. This is what I mean by the label Narcissus. It is the cult of the writer.

Users are in the main are silent, but edits, redirects, and all those matters that the "community" considers and manages, should also in my view consider their needs in terms of an information and education resource that they increasingly rely upon.

If someone came to your house uninvited and removed or rearranged what was there, your pleasure or displeasure in this would directly relate to the respect they showed to your use of those things and the authority the claimed and enforced in doing so. Similarly, the benefits that administrators bring to wiki and the need for wiki's political organisation to focus on users should at least be balanced in the article, and I believe in general, against the perceived disbenefits of control to the free-reign of editors. LookingGlass (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:L Sanger.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:L Sanger.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

Any reason why not to have this at Wikipedia community? It seems to have been at that title for a long time before taking the current name as part of a history merge; I'm tempted to think that the admin accidentally didn't move it back to the pre-merge title. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an accident. The admin did not want to use the title "Wikipedia community". You can see the discussion here. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


Can someone please redirect the search 'neckbeard' to this page? That is all. (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Article quality[edit]

Hi. As I skimmed this article today (at this revision), I was unimpressed with the quality of this article. Certain sections are fine, but others are unreferenced or simply wrong. I did a bit of cleanup, but this article needs some serious work, if anyone has time or inclination. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup and lead[edit]

An enormous amaount of content (about 75%) was removed from this article in July and August. The result is that the lead as it now stands bears no relation to the article that follows. It was not particularly well written anyway, being little more than a collection of quotes on random aspects of WP by writers who might or might not be notable—as well as being seven to ten years out of date. I am therefore removing all but the first sentence. The last sentence can be moved down to the following section. If somebody could write a lead that "defines the topic, establishes context, explains why the topic is notable, and summarizes the most important points" (per WP:LEAD) that would be worthwhile. Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Post-script: I have discovered that everything I removed is already at Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of the community, so it has not been lost. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Community of WikipediaWikipedia community – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Community of Wikipedia" is not in common use. There was a HistMerge discussion in February 2011, which ended with the merge being done to Community of Wikipedia "since that is a better title", but without any discussion of that title. Scolaire (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. The current title sounds like a Romance language calque. (Incidentally, es:Comunidad de Wikipedia.) —  AjaxSmack  14:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support More natural sounding and in more common use. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. More natural usage in colloquial English. •••Life of Riley (TC) 01:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's all natural. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 00:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedian ?[edit]

Are they any sources for the word "Wikipedian" for a user of Wikipedia? I don't think I've ever seen any that weren't from Wikipedia site... Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The word "Wikipedian" may not be in widespread use in secondary, reliable sources, but there are such sources that use the word. Here is one example: -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi, just a question out of curiosity, do you people who constantly revert my inexplicable additions to your website get paid? Genuine question. Thanks (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No. It's all volunteer. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrator abuse[edit]

I deleted a bit about administrator abuse which was sourced to a paper:

This bit was slotted into a paragraph about the enjoyment of the editing experience, but nothing about this bit talked about enjoyment or the lack thereof. It was a clunky attempt to insert something negative and it violated WP:SYNTH. I don't think it should be used in this paragraph, if at all. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the paper is primarily about the slowing growth of Wikipedia. It is not about administrator abuse. The source should not be misrepresented. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)