|WikiProject Wikipedia||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Organizations||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the discussions if considering re-nomination:|
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
|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
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.
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)
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
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)
- 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: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-24/lifestyle/35268862_1_virginia-earthquake-magnitude-earthquake-wikipedia -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I deleted a bit about administrator abuse which was sourced to a paper:
- Bongwon Suh, Gregorio Convertino, Ed H. Chi, Peter Pirolli (2009), "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia". Proc. WikiSym’09.
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)