Wikipedia talk:Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More Contests

[b]You can't actually change anything in Wikipedia[/b] But if someone removed something, it'd be hell to find it. Similarly, if someone attacked an article repeatedly over a course of time, they could turn it to rubbish and make it hard to revert since the original article would be buried under a few hundred editations. (Let alone that "true" changes would be lost in the revert). And don't forget rolling IP's.

[b]We care deeply about the quality of our work.[/b] No you don't. You have no influence on the work of wikipedia. The PEOPLE of wikipedia do. "Wikipedia has a complex set of policies and quality control processes." No it doesn't; wikipedia bans people who the administrators don't like, reverts factual changes that angers others, and favors the weaker argument. The system is not complex, it's a poorly designed democracy.* "Our best articles are awarded "featured article" status" And lose that status in a few months. Smickles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.207.93 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[b]We do not expect you to trust us.[/b] Please do not pull that. Society speaks for you, and society believes wikipedia is a credible source. It is not. "others are admittedly complete rubbish." If this is true, why are such articles allowed to exist in the first place? "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" Not exactally, encyclopedia's are usally written by people who know what they are talking about. NOT people who use a search engine to find the first article about a subject, and cut and paste it into wikipedia. "articles may contain errors, please do not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions." Petition to place this in a banner in each article.

[b]We are only collectors.[/b] Thats the problem, wikipedia collects everything, regardless of it's own regulations.

[b]We're neither a dictatorship nor any other political system.[/b] Wrong, the instant you begin making decisions that affect others, you become a political system.

[b]We're in it for the long haul.[/b] Sure, but wikipedia is like an internet fad, sometimes fads fade, sometimes they continue on... but no engineering can control the direction of fads.


  • Society doesn't know what is good for itself and often does not take the actions it knows are right, so a government that's plays on the fact society doesn't know or care what it's doing is not a true democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.179.195 (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
woot!tilda tilda tilda tilda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.236.95.164 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some contested items

"Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales occasionally acts as a final arbiter on the English Wikipedia, but his influence is based on respect, not power; it takes effect only where the community does not challenge it." Hi. Um. How is this true? I've been on WP a while, and I've never understood his "decisions" to be in effect where not challenged. One must only look to the Essjay issue to see that claim is false. It might be better put that his dictatorial powers are de facto, and he makes the final judgment except when the media is in an uproar? Xiphoris 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me be bold and say points 4. 5. and 6. are complete rubbish... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 09:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me be bold and say that opinions without justification are completely useless. :-) --Eloquence* 09:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that is the reason I said 4. 5. and six are rubbish. Totally unjustified opinions... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 09:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. They are justified with arguments & references.--Eloquence* 10:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You beg belief. Justification is not provided by statement. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 10:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at the recent essjay issue if you want proof that number 4 is invalid - he ended up deleting a large number of his old posts. Permanent deletion is a special power that admins on Wikipedia have.

"The Wikimedia Foundation is controlled by its Board of Directors, the majority of whom are elected by the community." Huh? Only 2 of 7 were elected. The majority still consists of Jimbo, his appointees, and his appointees' appointees. Which also makes nonsense of the claim that Jimbo's authority is based on respect rather than power. Let the entire Board be elected and see how much respect Jimbo will have then. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mindspillage and Oscar came in second and third in the last election. I supported them for appointment specifically for that reason, and objected to appointment of anyone else. They were appointed to terms that end together with mine, and must stand for re-election together with myself. Insofar I would argue that the status quo is equivalent to their election.--Eloquence* 13:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The election was for one place only. As such Mindspillage and Oscar were losers in the election (and indeed had only 28% and 30% support). They were arbitrarily appointed by the Jimbo-dominated Board (your support was not necessary). With the same kind of justification the fourth- and fifth-place finishers etc. could have been appointed as well. Jimbo had openly recommended the election of Mindspillage and Oscar, and when neither won first place he just appointed them anyway. It still is a dictatorship. (If you think Jimbo's authority is based on respect, why doesn't he stand for election himself?) Bramlet Abercrombie 13:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
1) "Only 28% and 30% support" is a disingenuous comment, given the method of voting and the number of candidates. Approval voting is widely considered superior to first-past-the-post voting in assessing honest voter choices. A "50% vote" does not by any means assess a 50% level of honest support for a candidate if you take into account strategic voting. 2) Michael is not Jimmy's functionary and has voted opposite to him and other Board members on numerous occasions. The fact that Jimmy endorsed Mindspillage and Oscar also does not make them functionaries. Thus, Jimmy never had a "safe majority", and he certainly does not now. 3) The Board is consensus-oriented, and a consensus solution typically quickly wins out over a non-consensus one. Suffice it to say that, at the relevant Board meeting, it was I who insisted that Mindspillage and Oscar should be appointed, over alternative proposals that were under discussion. 4) If you knew anything about non-profit Boards, you'd understand that by far the most important position is that of Chair. Jimmy is no longer the Chair of the Board. 5) Jimmy's term is already limited to one year (with regular renewal by majority vote), just like the other two appointed Board members. We've discussed the possibility of making his seat an elected one as he is basically a community member. Incidentally, the reason we have discussed this is partially that it would allow us to appoint another external person to the Board while retaining a community-elected majority. However, there are other concerns. In the next election, 3 Board members will stand for re-election, in addition to any expansion that may occur. Best practice for non-profit Boards is to have staggered appointments/elections to ensure orientation of new members. It therefore may not make sense to push for Jimmy's seat to be an elected one before 2008.--Eloquence* 14:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
1) No, it is precisely with this method of voting (i.e. where people can vote for multiple candidates) that 28% and 30% are very bad results. It means, on the face of it, that 72% and 70% respectively disapprove of the person. Had it been known in advance that lower-ranked finishers might be appointed, there would have been more candidates in the first place and the result would have been different. As it was, many people probably refrained from running because they didn't expect to be able to win first place. Deciding afterwards to appoint the best losers too is not a proper electoral procedure. 2) Well, I'll have to take your word for that. I don't see votes on the Board being published, so that one could check if any vote on any serious matter ever went against Jimmy. I just find it a strange coincidence that almost all of Jimmy's appointees have been libertarians or Objectivists like himself. 3) Any such practice would only be in effect at Jimmy's pleasure. If Jimmy and his appointees have the majority, they don't need a consensus. 4) Florence doesn't strike me as holding the most important position. Where is this supposed importance of the chair coming from? The decisions have to be made by majority vote. So if Jimmy and his appointees have a majority, they don't need the chair. 5) Again, if he has a majority of his own appointees, he hardly has to worry about being reappointed. If you're suggesting that in the future his seat will be made elective (and no further appointed seats will be added), so that a majority of seats will be elective, then that's good to hear, but as of now it is still a dictatorship. Bramlet Abercrombie 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that your intention is to take a deliberately hostile view towards everything Wikimedia, and that you find facts more annoying than helpful in this process. You continue to insist that Jimmy has "his appointees" on the Board, which, as I have explained, is flat out wrong and borderline libelous. You fail to understand even the most basic aspects of non-profit governance and are, through your ignorance, insulting the Chair of the Foundation who bears the brunt of governing responsibilities. You do not even understand approval voting: lack of a vote does not imply "disapproval", it implies nothing at all, and in an election with voters from dozens of countries and 17 candidates a non-vote is primarily predicted by unfamiliarity with the candidate. In short, you are trolling.--Eloquence* 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Flat out wrong? Did Jimmy not appoint Tim and Michael? And did not the board where those three had the majority, appoint Mindspillage, Oskar, and Jan-Bart? So the majority of the present Board are Jimmy's direct or indirect appointees. Insulting the chair? Well, maybe Florence is dealing with a lot of quiet bureaucratic stuff, but she's certainly not making any major decisions about matters the community cares about. On the other hand, there are plenty of pronunciamentos of Jimmy. I don't remember that it was Florence who asked Essjay to resign, for example. Do enlighten me about "the most basic aspects of non-profit governance" which you think I don't understand. So far you're just making empty insults. Bramlet Abercrombie 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no "infectious" indirect appointment; a decision made by someone appointed originally by Jimmy is not implicitly a decision by Jimmy. I have also already pointed out to you that the appointment of Mindspillage and Oscar was not advocated by Jimmy, but by myself. Florence is responsible for "quiet bureaucratic stuff" such as talking to the Wall Street Journal, or leading the search for an Executive Director, or coordinating the interaction with our paid staff members, or organizing and setting the agenda for all Board meetings. Quiet indeed. Did it ever occur to you that, in the bigger picture, the things that "matter to the community" such as your everyday userbox dispute or admin wheel war, are not actually that important to an organization which operates 9 projects in 250 languages, runs 300 servers, and has to process 20,000 hits per second; an organization which must lead business negotiations and fundraising efforts, technological initiatives, coordination of chapters, and outreach? The extent of Jimmy's authority is explained in the page. You can choose to continue to believe in your vision of an arch-dictator, or you can face the reality of an organization that has moved on, as explained to you by one of its Board members.--Eloquence* 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
So you just expect people to trust that Jimmy makes only completely disinterested appointments of people who have no hesitation at all to vote against him, even though they were longtime business partners. Well, you can choose to believe that. As to Mindspillage and Oscar, he obviously agreed with their appointments, even if you think that it was you who made it happen. The point is, he and his appointees could have outvoted you and Florence in case of a disagreement. As to the things Florence does, yes, that's just what I thought. I'm not disparaging her work at all, but it is of an administrative rather than "political" nature. And as far as talking to the press goes, Jimmy is still doing much more of that than Florence. Indeed, you have yourself described Jimmy's authority in the page. The difference is only that you think it is a "natural authority" (the respected "founder"), while I don't think his authority would last if his appointees weren't dominating the Board. Bramlet Abercrombie 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The logic by which you have declared Mindspillage and Oscar to be "Jimmy's appointees" (Michael and Tim were business partners and therefore would do anything he says, and even if I hadn't made the proposition to recognize the election result for the purpose of expanding the Board, and he hadn't argued for a different proposition, he could have controlled his "partners" to ensure the outcome that resulted, therefore the appointed trustees, who happen to be the legitimate runner-ups in the election, must also be directly controlled by Jimmy, even though it is clear that Jimmy is no longer even chairing the Board, and the majority of the Board has won the direct support of the community) is so tortured, unreal and full of false assumptions that it doesn't merit further commenting. You've truly lost touch with reality.--Eloquence* 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What's a "legitimate runner-up"? A runner-up in an election is a loser in the election. And I wonder how 28% approval constitutes "direct support of the community". With your attitude here it is indeed no surprise that you did not win a majority yourself. Your story about Jimmy arguing for a different proposition is not verifiable and irrelevant. He agreed to it, and the appointment of those two was no doubt in his interest, since he had told people to vote for those very two before the election. Of course they are Jimmy's appointees. Bramlet Abercrombie 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Everyone but Eloquence is wrong and all must be out of touch with reality for disagreeing with him. It seems that Eloquence is being rather disingenuous and is arguing semantics instead of just admitting to an obvious error. I'll address the various points that were clearly wrong.
1. Nothing here even remotely qualifies as libel. The standard for libel of a public figure is very strict and requires malice, with an extreme disregard for the truth (usually intentional) and substantial financial damage resulting from it. Please retract your earlier inflammatory statement, as this doesn't even come close to being borderline.
2. Approval voting, as outlined in the Wikipedia article itself, usually just elects a single person, but using it to elect multiple people is problematic. The article has a section and further links explaining how using multiple people is problematic. Don't deride some person for not understanding a concept when you didn't bother to carefully read the article you linked to. Who is the person that decides who becomes board members? Who is the one that decides the cut off point in terms of position and/or percentage in the "election"? Wales does and by his own choice of rules. That makes it an appointment. By your own acknowledgment they don't really have to obey election results--the de facto standard is not to obey some well-defined statistical rule (which would keep it as de facto election), but is to go by what Wales says. If Wales didn't like them, do you think they would have gotten appointed?
That said, why should anyone be elected at all if they don't even have a simple majority support (i.e. the majority is against them)? For a position that important, there should at least be a supermajority. And what about the other people who were appointed (not just those two)? Ignoring the others doesn't strengthen your point--if any are elected at all, then you can't claim it's truly driven by consensus within the community. It's clear that Wales favors people _extra_ based on a combination of certain political ideologies and whether or not he likes them personally.
3. Arbitrators have been appointed on many occassions by Wales. The arbitrators set down rules that must be obeyed by all Wikipedians. No one could do anything to contest these--all they could do is complain. That sounds like a dictatorial power on Wales' part and the appointed positions of the arbitrators could also be considered an oligarchy.
Don't rely on the straw man argument that his appointees will blindly obey him. No one is suggesting that. Instead, they are suggesting that when it comes to various major issues on Wikipedia, they a strongly ideologically similar and even where they aren't, they will show favortism toward Wales (as well as other members in certain cliques) over others. Wales himself also exercises favortism--just see the Essjay scandal.
4. Wales was once the chair. That means he did once have a large amount of power de jure in the past and to not mention this at all in the essay is disingenuous, because at best, it means that Wales used to be a dictator. Beyond that, everyone I have heard speak about this, including numerous admins, arbitrators and other "high ranking" people have said that if Wales makes an official proclamation, it MUST be obeyed. There have even been policies created and policies modified on nothing more than his word--in other words, no consensus required and in fact, any attempt to build consensus is ignored on the basis that Wales said it. Even in some major disputes his word is used to automatically trump consensus.
Can you present evidence that Wales gets this power through respect? You say it's somewhere in the links, but don't specify where--relying on ambiguity to support your arugment only weakens it. Even if Wales didn't get his power as a dictator...why does that mean it must be through respect? Have you considered that it might be intimidation? Many people are afraid to challenge him and others who are high ranking within Wikipedia's social hierarchy because those other high ranking people, especially certain admins, will use their powers and/or influence to make their wiki-life hell (a mob/herd mentality). Also, please don't try to deny that admins sometimes don't take actions because of fear of challenging a certain community member--we all know this does happen and to do so, even without having seen the evidence yourself (I'm sure you've seen this quite a few times by now), it would require denying basic human psychology and how it operates with social communities of this size. Any community of this size will inevitably become susceptible to herds (ala herd mentality).
5. There is no political system? What do you call an election, then? What do you call the consensus policy? There are consensus democracies, after all. Aside from the fact that there are numerous arguments of a political nature about people appointed and elected, as well as political arguments over policies...the policies themselves represent politics. The people in power-based positions like admins, arbitrators, bureaucrats, and so on have political powers. Any sufficiently large issue on Wikipedia results in heated political debate and you start seeing various people take sides. It seems you must be using a definition of politics that is defined carefully such that nothing can qualify--so if you're going this semantics route, how exactly are you defining politics?
6. I'll add a quick review of problems with other sections. "Only collectors"--edits evaluated on merits--this is a joke, we all know very well that very often being an expert gets people a special priority and is not evaluated on its merits nearly to the same extent (see Essjay scandal--it was largely inflammatory because people relied on him being an expert). Plus, the great number of biases people hold also greatly contradict the things being evaluated on just their merits--it is simply not truthful to suggest that even the majority of Wikipedians are mostly objective in evaluating edits. "Trust"--it's true, errors are acknowledged, but from the major proponents (such as yourself), I tend to see far, far more defense of Wikipedia's quality (an implication that it's trustworthy), than acknowledging the great deal of issues. "You can't change..."--this one is definitely arguing semantics and a poor job of it at that. For starts, adding is a form of change, so it's contradicting itself. In every sense of the word, it is changed--the databases themselves are altered, the pages reflect the change, and the history pages reflect the change. It would be most accurate to say it's not erased, but you reverted that--although even that has exception, but it would be helpful to point out.
7. Oh yeah, I did know the parts that are true. The title is misleading and perhaps only useful to complete newbies, for the truthful parts. This article really shouldn't be linked from major parts of Wikipedia, especially considering how contested it is and there is basically just one person (Eloquence) defending the contested points. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain why that change is "malicious"? If a "runner-up" is appointed, is that person still an appointee? An appointee is by definition unelected. When one does the math it still seems that the board is majority appointee. Quatloo 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to be completely anal about it, all Board members are appointees, since the Board is under no obligation to accept election results. This appears to be largely a game with semantics to support the conclusion that Wikimedia is "still majority appointee", in spite of the fact that the runner-ups were appointed to terms of the same length as mine (instead of a full year term), and will be required to stand for re-election after that. This was the most democratic thing the WMF could have done under the circumstances, if it didn't want to run yet another 2 month election circus. In any case, I've changed the text to reflect the reality of the Foundation bylaws, which require that the majority of the Board must be either appointed or elected from the community.--Eloquence* 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather fit something along the lines of "while anyone can edit Wikipedia, actually have something notable to write about first". And I'm surprised that didn't make it in here more clearly. As my subpage in my sig notes, the project would highly benefit from someone fixing this perception of Wikipedia as the place you can add anything to, and as an extension that's why you should never use it as a source (rather than noting it's a tertiary source, and that's the reason you shouldn't trust us beyond what we cite :p). -Wooty Woot? contribs 07:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with everything but point 9. This is a benevolent dictatorship, but the authoritarian boot has come down before when democracy is apparently not working fast enough. Not enough to make me even fathom quitting, but I've run into it a little too much to pretend it's not even a bit, uh, "Putin-ish". Great list overall --Bobak 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy wonks

I'm in agreement with Angela, I don't think that particular bit of humor works for this. My suggestion: "We do care about quality." --Michael Snow 05:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have to say that you care, then nobody believes you. If they see quality, they will believe that you care about it. That is all. Mangoe 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikitravel

What about Wikitravel? Shouldn't it be included in the list?

159.140.254.10 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project. It's hosted by Internet Brands.--Eloquence* 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess the suggestion is related to the item "Wikipedia is part of a growing movement for Free Knowledge". therfor your answer is irrelevant. What ius relevant is whether wikitravel is part of Free Knowledge" or not. So far the impression is that only wikimedia projects are listed, which is Bad Thing IMO, not to say that as a result the bold title We are not alone smells a bit overstretched when mentioning only jimboisms as a proud justifiction. `'mikka 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if non-Wikimedia GFDL and other flavours of "free" projects were mentioned apart from the the Wikimedia ones. I initially took the "we are not alone" comment to refer to the wider community of copyleft and "free" projects, and was disappointed to read the same old list of Wikimedia projects. Carcharoth 12:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is the first thing I thought of when I saw the article state that "We are not alone." Being for free projects shouldn't mean solely supporting your own -- hell, that's what the free license is about, at least in part. Releasing your work under a free license by definition is an action supportive of other derivative and intersecting works ... why not own up to that and mention some non-wikimedia projects? --hack 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I knew all these things

You lied! Now tell me things I really don't know! – Qxz 06:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with Qxz. I feel cheated! :P GracenotesT § 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You might like the Wikipedia:Tip of the day archive. ;-) --Eloquence* 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I know all them too. Come on, tell me something new! Some inner Cabal secret that's never yet seen the light of day. Or something – Qxz 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I knew them too. WE DEMAND ACTUAL GEMS OF NEW INFO, PLS. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 19:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if Qxz knows how to remove sysop status from a user. Or make users autoconfirmed as the result of placement in a group (via Special:Userrights), rather than as a function of time. Or write a featured article? Or an anti-vandal program (okay, nix that last one). Or who was desysopped in the userboxen wheel war. Or the history of ParserFunctions. Or how to use the wpReason delete parameter. Or when to use a list in an article. Or exactly how to go about major graphical layout changes. Or what WP:CSD#P2 or WP:CSD#G9 is. Or a particular instance where someone gained control of a sysop account and altered a highly visible page in a nonconstructive way. Or how to bypass the meta spam blacklist as a regular user. There is so little we know, but so much we all know. Hence, the wiki. (tada) (And you probably know one or two or [...] of these, Qxz!) GracenotesT § 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
get around the spam blacklist as an ordinary user — doesn't that defeat the point of a spam filter? Bawolff 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well... it's an extremely obscure hack. Hopefully it'll stay as such :) GracenotesT § 16:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's see. The first I know, although I doubt I'll ever have the opportunity to do it on a Wikimedia project. The second, I could probably figure out if someone gave me the interface. I know how to write a featured article, I'm just too lazy. I know how to write anti-vandal software; a couple of minutes in the archives of WP:RFAR tells me exactly who was desysopped in the (ugh) userbox wheel wars, the history of ParserFunctions seems to be "AzaToth created {{qif}}, the developers responded with ParserFunctions in order to prevent the servers from dying", I assume the wpReason delete parameter is the reason-for-deletion field when you're deleting a page, you use a lists in an article when you need to list things (duh), you go about major graphical layout changes very carefully, G9 is WP:OFFICE and P2 is underpopulated portal (I committed those to memory some time ago), I have to say this looks a bit suspicious, though it was reverted soon after, I know it was possible to bypass the spam blacklist by adding HTML comments into the URL but I thought that was fixed.
Is that right? Do I win a prize? – Qxz 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1. yes 2. no 3. dubious 4. right on! 5. no 6. yes 7. yes. 8. dubious/no 9. no 10. yes 11. yes 12. no 13. no Gracenotes gives Qxz a gold medal GracenotesT § 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you look all that up on Wikipedia Qxz? :) · AO Talk 12:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about that. Apparently you can't trust Wikipedia. GracenotesT § 04:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Me too (yawn). - Amorwikipedia 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I bet none of you even knew what Banyumasan was before it was implied to be a language here. And I call beans on the guess the spamlist circumvention question. I know three ways, and I'm not telling. 209.77.205.2 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't want you to trust us.

I have a big problem with this statement. I don't feel like we should be giving the green light to those who feel that Wikipedia is a totally unreliable source. It may be unreliable in some places, but I think we've done a damn good job trying to keep the truth in and the nonsense out. It's demeaning to the editors who put all their time into editing and sourcing articles and makes it look like the entire Wikipedia community is full of liars. I know what you're trying to say, but truthfully, most people who see this will only look at the headings, so it's important to make them truthful. └Jared┘┌talk┐  19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see this statement links to a disclaimer, which is needed to protect Wikipedia against any lawsuits. Therefore I suggest calling this statement: "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity" or "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of its articles". Itzse 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with "We cannot guarantee the validity of our articles." └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't. This isn't meant to be a boring disclaimer, it's meant to be interesting to read.--Eloquence* 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, and that's why I see where you're coming from, but it's too harsh of a statement. If you can think of something that's both funny and truthful, I'd like to hear it because I don't want to make this a totally serious thing, as you said. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Both of you are correct. Maybe we can find the wording which isn't demeaning to the editors and at the same time not a boring disclaimer. Itzse 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
But you shouldn't trust "us" -- ie, the editors who write the articles. You should be checking the sources for yourself. We know there are bad articles on Wikipedia, as there will always be as long as it's the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. We can't guarantee the quality of any article, so we don't. – Þ  01:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I think the wording is perfect, and not demeaning at all in context. Even if someone is only reading the headings, notice that this comes right after "We care deeply about the quality of our work." —Celithemis 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree - I mean, even in personal life, I don't expect (and don't want) people to trust what I say simply because I said it. I want to convince them with reasons. Obviously, this includes references. Mikker (...) 15:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I would just say that there's probably a more friendly way to state it. └Jared┘┌talk┐  19:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
'Don't take our word(s) for it'; 'We don't get the last word(s)'; are possibly friendlier phrases to wordsmith. Milo 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I like "don't take our word for it". Carcharoth 12:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll edit in the classic idiom "Don't take our word for it." for a consensus check. 'Don't take our words for it' is a slightly more clever play on words that could be tried later. Milo 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't even make any sense. "Don't take our word for it" is an exhortation, not a factual statement; it cannot be a "thing you didn't know" because it's not a thing to know. —Celithemis 21:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Try it now; I've made it declarative. Mangoe 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Better, but still not very good. It's likely to be read, at first, as "We don't want you to take our word for the previous five items on this list" rather than "we don't want you to take our word for the facts in our our articles", so all the surprise of the original is lost. —Celithemis 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah. This is better, but still doesn't encapsulate the full sense of the point. "We don't want you to trust us" is simple, to the point, and true. If it offends you, then go ahead and be offended, because it's still the case that readers should not trust the authors of articles, including you, no matter what point six says. – Þ  20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

New compromise: We don't expect you to trust us. Still misses the punch of the original, but less Reading Rainbow-ish than "don't take our word for it" and solves Celithemis' concern about what we're referring to. I also think it's important to explicitly mention trust here because much of the criticism directed at WP is about trust and trustworthiness. – Þ  21:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"We don't want you to trust us" connotatively goes way beyond "verify what you read here". It's not true, in a sense analogous to questions with a false premise. The criticism of occasional disinformation has been reframed by Wikipedia's opponents to an exaggerated global issue of "trust". This implies that Wikipedia is to be trusted or not like a single integrated person or a hierarchy-controlled organization - which diverse Wikipedia is not.
If an info source is "untrustworthy", then by connotation there must exist systemic motives for POV agenda, targeted deceit, and mendacious gratification. By using the loaded word "trust", critics are implying that the whole barrel should be landfilled because a few apples are rotten. Skipping to the logical result of this tar-brushing, if you were a donor, would you give money to suspected systemic liars?
Take back our issue frame. You/we/Wikipedia will want to stop using the falsely-premised word "trust" at all, because to continue doing so helps those who desire to take down the project. Please don't help them. Milo 10:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
First off, it is true. You can't ever trust anonymous Internet sources, so we aren't asking you to. I don't think we're that far apart here. I just want to counter the false premise directly: that it is somehow the goal or obligation of Wikipedia to magically turn the Internet into an authoritative source of information.
Refuting that false premise is not the same as saying that Wikipedia is full of lies and systemic bias. It's the mu response to "is Wikipedia trustworthy?" – Þ  23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't want you to trust us blindly (or anyone else for that matter). Please do not use Wikipedia as your final source for important decisions. 70.112.49.77 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the frank tone of this list and the open, honest voice free of weasel-words. I think there's room for improvements in this section. The section currently says: "others are admittedly complete rubbish." Would it not be better without "admittedly". Some articles are complete rubbish. Nothing admittedly about it. It is so. We're aware of it. We're doing our best to improve them. What do you think ? --212.33.149.18 08:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

Excellent essay. Thanks for posting it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Any specific reason for using full URLs rather than wikilinks? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Because it is intended to be copied and posted verbatim off-wikipedia, of course. Johntex\talk 04:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That is what I thought. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! A couple of minor points: "We don't want you to trust us." could do with noting that Wikipedia gives an introduction helping you to find sources you can check, not a definitive source in itself, and "Editors must follow a neutral point of view" might be clearer to the uninitiated if it said "Editors must follow a 'neutral point of view', giving unbiased accounts of various significant viewpoints". Just my suggestions, .. dave souza, talk 09:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


do you fucking people actually sit here and try to argue with each other? if u know not everything is valid on wikipedia, then thank the assholes who posted the bullshit. dont try to make it sound all fucking complex. it's fine the way it is: "we do not expect you to trust us." i think anyone in their right mind can understand and interpret that statement the way it was meant to be understood. do ppl actually get their panties in a fucking bunch over how those particular phrases are worded? it's short, sweet, and SIMPLE! for those of us who are stupid, like me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.227.219 (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While I respect your position on this, is there any chance you could please try and be a bit more polite? I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and always expect some bad language every now and then, but your response is bordering on the absurd.
Using eloquence in an argument helps people understand your opinion and helps you get your point of view across much more efficiently than spouting expletives left, right, and centre.
I read what you wrote, and immediately couldn’t care less if you were in the right or not. Articulate responses go a long way and are much more appreciated.
Thanks. Fakelvis 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The sum of all knowledge?

The following statement appears near the end of the essay:

We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.

I can imagine such a world, but I cannot currently imagine such a Wikipedia, because arguably most of the sum of all knowledge is insufficiently notable to make the cut here. Deletionists routinely delete articles from Wikipedia; in some of these articles, the underlying facts are not in dispute, but the facts are not the type of facts Wikipedia wants to publish. A large example is procedural knowledge (WP:NOT#IINFO), such as appears in instruction manuals and how-to guides. This is a significant exclusion, because we don't have to imagine a world in which (nearly) every single human being values procedural knowledge and seeks to obtain more — we inhabit that world. People routinely ask "How do I ...?" and Wikipedia wants them to find answers elsewhere. To its credit, Wikipedia often links to Web pages that provide such answers, but Wikipedia does not want to publish that sort of content directly.

One way to picture encyclopedic selectivity is to compare a paper encyclopedia to the non-fiction portion of a library: the encyclopedia might have a few dozen volumes, while a large library has a million or more. By no means does the encyclopedia replace the rest of the library, nor is that what encyclopedists intend.

This is not a criticism of Wikipedia, just a suggestion to make that closing remark accurately reflect Wikipedia's more modest goal. How about:

We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in that subset of the sum of all knowledge we consider to be encyclopedic.

It doesn't have the same rhetorical impact, but it's more honest. For an example of an organization which does claim to want to make all knowledge accessible to everyone, see Google. I'm not implying Google is "better" than Wikipedia. I recognize that Wikipedia is driving an explosion of interest in wiki technology. One might argue that by freely giving away its MediaWiki software, the WikiMedia Foundation is stimulating the growth of wikis in general, which might indeed lead to the open-sourcing of virtually all non-proprietary knowledge, as increasingly more wikis spring up to publish Wikipedia's rejects. --Teratornis 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I wholeheartedley agree with the above. It also relates to what Wooky wrote somewhere above: ""while anyone can edit Wikipedia, actually have something notable to write about first" - too many people think that Wikipedia accepts anything anyone decides to write about one day. Carcharoth 12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I found a better way to phrase the goal, direct from the Great Leader himself. Wikipedia#Language editions says, more accurately I think: Wikipedia has been described as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".[1] Thus the sentence in Wikipedia:Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia/Archive 1 should read:
  • We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share an encyclopedia of the highest possible quality in their own language.
I don't see how to interpret Jimbo Wales's stated goal as encompassing all knowledge. I think it's fair to say that "quality" to Mr. Wales implies excluding a lot. While still leaving a vast amount of knowledge, of course - just the knowledge that can be expressed encyclopedically. --Teratornis 04:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the issue isn't expressing knowledge in an encyclopedia. Rather, the main problem is the depth and breadth of knowledge in existence. Information is the fastest growing field, and a giant repository of all knowledge would be massively huge. Not to mention completely impractical as far as how long it would take to assemble. Anybody ever read the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov?--Rob01 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:39, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
I like it the way it is just fine, but I certainly wouldn't object to it being switched to the Jimbo derived version above... when I read #10 I got a little misty-eyed, personally. As far as "completely impractical as far as how long it would take to assemble", so what? Many noble tasks are hard and/or slow... pragmatism is boring. 72.240.128.22 04:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Solution to all your problems: Suggest a new wiki; WikiHow, or something. All procedural knowledge will be redirected there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.130.107 (talk) 18:21, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Andrei Sakharov quote?

"I foresee a universal information system (UIS), which will give everyone access at any given moment to the contents of any book that has ever been published or any magazine or any fact. …Even the partial realization of the UIS will profoundly affect every person, his leisure activities, and his intellectual and artistic development. …But the true historic role of the UIS will be to break down the barriers to the exchange of information among countries and people." - Andrei Sakharov

I think it would be cool to add this quote to the bottom (or top) of the page. Sakharov's prophecy is coincidentally the principal ideal that motivates Wikipedia to become the grandiose free database of knowledge we want it to become. What do you guys think? RavenStorm 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comments in the previous section. Sakharov is talking about making all published work freely available. That's what Google claims to want to do, but not Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." [2]. An encyclopedia tries to summarize all the information in a library, but it neither replaces nor attempts to duplicate the library. One might argue that in its ultimate form, Wikipedia will be more generally usable than the kind of universal information appliance envisioned by Sakharov, because the information in Wikipedia will have been collectively filtered down to reflect the consensus of many people as to what is most important to know about things.
You can see this already by comparing the better Wikipedia articles on many topics to the results of Google Search on the same topics. The Google results tend to be random groupings of Web pages in inconsistent formats and of inconsistent quality. When you need to dig up specific, non-notable details about something, you have to dredge through tedious Web searches, but most people will want to start with a general introduction, and they'll usually get that faster and more predictably on Wikipedia than by trying to mine it out of a storehouse of all information. For the Sakharov idea reach its full potential, people do not merely need access to all the world's information, they need some sort of intelligent entity to explain it to them, and tell them what is relevant to their problems. (After all, conventional libraries have been common in the developed nations for centuries, yet only a small percentage of people make much use of them, because it is very mentally demanding to have to search for answers yourself. A big pile of information is not the same as having intelligent human experts at your disposal, who can deduce your goals even if you cannot articulate them well, and find the answers for you even if you have no idea where to look.) While we continue to wait N more decades for artificial intelligence to get there, Wikipedia is a pretty good interim stopgap.
If we really want to see something profoundly affect every person, wait until we have artificially intelligent software which can accept as input ordinary questions from ordinary people in their natural languages, and provide the best possible answers to any questions that can be answered from all the information that has been recorded, on par with what the best human experts can do in every domain of knowledge. That won't be quite as good as somehow downloading actual expertise into our brains, but it will be pretty darned good. --Teratornis 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I should add that while Sakharov's UIS is not exactly the same as what Wikipedia aims to build, having a UIS handy would certainly help with finding those often elusive reliable sources for our articles.
And another comment about goals and experts: not only do many people have difficulty articulating their goals clearly, often people don't even know what they want, until they see it. A knowledgeable expert is able to infer and clarify a non-expert's goals by presenting options, and observing how the customer reacts. --Teratornis 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined against the Sakharov quote in this context. It's eloquent, but I appreciate the honest romanticism of the essay as currently written; I am concerned that adding citations and quotations will make it feel more academic. 72.240.128.22 04:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Plaudits: 5 and 6 read better now. Still have problems with 4

I want to applaud whoever rephrased items 5 and 6. They are vastly clarified, and easy for me to stand by. Number 4 is still confusing though, far from a clear statement of what its authors possibly laudable intentions were. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

<edit>I found a better phrasing of number 4 in the history of the project page, and re-instated it.</edit> -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns with Section 2

2 Begins: "Wikipedia has taken a cue from GNU/Linux and Mozilla Firefox and done away with the restrictions of traditional copyright law." While I understand the desire to bring up relatively well-known examples of "copyleft", AFAIK Wikipedia's use of the GFDL predates the existence of Firefox. It would then be more plausible to say that Wikipedia took a cue from Mozilla, which I believe at the time of Wikipedia's founding used the Mozilla Public License. — Aluvus t/c 04:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Link Improvements

You know the "more information" links below each paragraph? Wouldn't it be better if, instead of being rather rough looking URLs, they reflected the title or significant concept within the page they link to? Audacitor 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.130.107 (talk) 18:23, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

We do not expect you to trust EVERYTHING

23-Aug-2007: Please state as "trust everything" rather than "trust us" (otherwise, the whole basis of WP seems suspect). The intent is not to cast doubt on stated motives or policy objectives (as though "don't trust anything we're saying here: these 10 points are all just bull"). Instead, the phrase should be stated, "We do not expect you to trust everything" (leaving room for honesty in motives and policies). Also see the related or tangent expressions described under topic "We don't want you to trust us" (above). The phrase "trust us" is a loaded expression in American English idioms, inappropriate for the article, and should be avoided in the list. -Wikid77 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Foreknowledge"?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines foreknowledge as "Knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence; prescience." The OED says it's "Knowledge of an event, etc. before it exists or happens; prescience." I understand what that sentence is getting at, but that word struck me. It could be removed and the meaning wouldn't change for the worse—after all, even after reading these 10 Things, the newbie will still have limited knowledge. --zenohockey 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it. I first saw the page with a "View source" tab when I wasn't signed in, so I assumed it was protected. --zenohockey 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That is, I thought I did but apparently didn't. And now someone else fixed it anyway, so I'm left wondering if I hallucinated my edit. Thing 11: Messes with your head! --zenohockey 18:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Maybe number 4 should be number 1, as some people really need to understand this rule. 4.243.218.192 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Things to Think About

You are all doing this for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.9.177 (talk) 02:21, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Silly. We all benefit from the thing we have produced. We wouldn't be editing if we didn't also read. — Omegatron 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't trust us

In item 6, how about wikilinking "highest quality of scholarship" to WP:FA? User:Matchups too late on 8/24/07 (EDT). —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Point 4 needs a clarification

"You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia..." then we say we have an eternal memory. Which is true, of course :-) However, what about those edits that have been removed due to oversight, which can't be viewed even by admins? I think we should note this, especially in cases of libel. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to be very careful not to be overly long, if it's too long the page will quickly become useless... if we keep it short people will forgive us for omitting some small details. I agree that we shouldn't be wrong, but we can't not be and should not try to be complete. Each point could have at least a hundred pages of elaboration written about it... If you can propose a language change which would make the text more true but not confusing or longer, please do. I'm drawing a blank.--Gmaxwell 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If you could not actually change anything in Wikipedia, then there would be no edit wars. Thus, it is seen that there are no edit wars. Here is what that sucker looks like now:

4. You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia...

…you can only add to it. Wikipedia is a database with an eternal memory. An article you read today is just the current draft; every time it is changed, we keep both the new version and a copy of the old version. This allows us to compare different versions, or restore older ones as needed. As a reader, you can even cite the specific copy of an article you are looking at. Just link to the article using the "Permanent link" at the bottom of the left menu, and your link will point to a page whose contents will never change. (However, if an article is deleted, you cannot view a permanent link to it unless you are an administrator.)
More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
Have a go at altering this reading many would regard as "honest:"

4. You cannot actually change what has been contributed to Wikipedia...

…you can only fight tooth and claw over what gets shown. Last man standing - world of wordcraft - this does tend to burn out the unaddicted. However, unless a contribution has been permanently terminated for legal reasons, every edit remains in the database. Some edits are only available to Administrators, but all the rest can be accessed and linked to by anybody. So you've got ammo.
More information: http://searchengineland.com/070717-113550.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.150.96 (talk) 11:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Promotional BS is not going to have NPOV - "more true but not confusing or longer" evidently would be wrong. If Ta bu shi da yu wants to shoehorn Office into paragraph 4, I think he will have to do it himself. - Metarhyme 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't exactly trust you, but you are a good source of information, so keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.174.229 (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia...

I am really glad that this page exists, and love that it's included at the top of each page for anonymous users. Something like this should be very prominent for newcomers, who often have no idea how it works. And we're so used to the site that we don't even think of it.

But step 4 is a little off, I think. Even though it's plainly obvious to us how the site works, it's not at all to outsiders. I've talked to my non-Wikipedian friends and asked them how they think the site works. Only one of several knew that the site could be edited by anyone at any time, one asked if I was paid for my work, etc. We need to first emphasize how the site is edited, and can be changed by anyone passing by, and then emphasize that it's not possible to permanently destroy information. — Omegatron 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I agree that the points you've raised are not clear enough. Propose a reformulation. :) We do make points about it being very open in the accuracy items at least.--Gmaxwell 02:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A complaint

How about the 11th being, 'you did not know Wikipedia allows petty racism and degradation of other people's cultures?' *shakes head* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 01:43, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

There are better places to complain than here. Also please be specific about what problems you've encountered. Because of Wikipedia's open nature sometimes bad things happen, but we try to fix them. --Gmaxwell 02:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


I disagree, It should be: You did not know wikipiedia is not censored, (which is important to know anyway) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.214.224 (talk) 20:55, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I knew all of those things.

I've learnt nothing new from reading this. sorry. =]

219.89.103.84 01:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Snap!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.178.213 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unpossible

If you knew that you knew all the things in the article before you read it, why read it? If you didn't know that you "knew all of those things" then you have learnt something new. Pbhj (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Negative Tone

The list has a rather defensive, negative tone. We're not X, We're not Y. I think it would be much nicer if it were framed positively. We are X, We are Y, etc. This is an old advertising trope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/171.66.35.198 (talk)

Well, how would you change it? Diffuse criticism isn't constructive. The heading for point 1 (We're not for sale) could be seen as having a rather defensive, negative tone. Stanford University is not for sale. How does that sound? How would you put it? - 207.229.150.96 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does it need to be an advertising pitch? — Omegatron 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
SineBot didn't slap the unsigned IP template on 171.66.35.198 before I requested the anon from Stanford to de-neg the heading for item 1. I've forgotten how to do that template, so I have just faked one in there for clarity. Since I may have frightened him off, and he intended to be helpful, I will try to answer for him. Promotion properly emphasizes positivity to induce good feelings about what is being pushed. Wikipedia needs recruits who believe in its noble purpose. 10 things you did not know about Wikipedia is an attempt to induce postive feelings. Maybe it shouldn't be half-assed; maybe it should? - 207.229.150.96 08:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If you knew all of those things, then what the fuck are you complaining about? You WISH there was something you didn't know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.227.219 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There are things I know I wish I didn't. You want to fight but need training. If you're fit for the armed services, see a recruiter. You too can acquire things you know you wish you didn't. - 207.229.150.96 07:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

10 things you probably didn't know about Wikipedia

[Title] I would suggest moving this essay to the title "10 things you probably did not know about Wikipedia", because newbies may very well already know some of these things. For example, I remember finding out very quickly that Wikipedia archives every past revision of every article, simply by clicking the "history" tab of the article I was reading. Also, Wikipedia's sister projects are showcased right on the Main Page, so a lot of people are probably aware of those, too. I might also suggest changing "did not" in the title to "didn't," to be more informal and reader-friendly. After all, contractions are used in several of the subtitles: "We're not for sale", "We're neither a dictatorship...", "We're in it for the long haul". What do you think of these possible changes? --CrazyLegsKC 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Let's move it in a few days if no one comes up with a good reason to keep it at what is incorrect for many many new readers. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-01t12:23z

I was thinking of "10 things you might not know about Wikipedia". --- RockMFR 02:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page placement

The link is interfering with the Portals listing. --69.215.113.206 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

#11: You can cite things.

I don't think a lot of casual user realise that things can be cited with external links. I'm seen a lot of message baord posts were someone posted an article for whatever reason and it was distrusted by repliers even though it had lots of citations.--87.42.205.42 11:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One more (#12?)

You can undo vandalism or bad edits through the history tab. WP:REVERT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.240.193 (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor journalists

"... specifically targeted at people who have limited prior experience with the project, such as journalists, new editors, and new readers..."

this sounds like an insult on journalists... Or are all journalists expected to have limited prior experience with the project? --anonymous, 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Lie?

Everybody who has worked here for a significant amount of time knows that Wikipedia is a dictatorship. We have all seen the edicts declared by Jimbo Wales and the pages of challenges deleted without consideration. Perhaps dictatorial edicts are necessary without a full blown democratic process, but why lie to the Newbies?

Why pretend that this is not a dictatorship? Why falsify claim that those with more administrative tools do not have more ability to influence content? Why create this bubble of falsehood that always eventually pops to reveal the ugly truth: that Wikipedia is nothing more than the world according to Jimbo and those with the most power at this site? Why promise Newbies that content will be NPOV and judged on merit when you and I both know that the first thing you will do after reading this is to review my contributions so that you can punish me by being critical of content I previously added. --Ned Pierce 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dictatorship? Undue influence by admins? Punishments? Are you editing the same Wikipedia that I am editing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If your contributions are being challenged, that is a good thing. Raise your arguments with civility and be heard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You are an administrator who is subject to peer review of other adminstrators. I am an editor who is subject to peer review of other editors and to hierarchical review of adminstrators. No, we are not editing the same Wikipedia. --Ned Pierce 16:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that your account is just new. Have you been editing with a different username? I would like to check what prompt you to say what you are saying. If you are uncomfortable declaring your previous username or IP, just let me know what were the circumstances that lead you to feel the way you do. FYI, I am an admin, but I am subject to peer review of my fellow editors, admins or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I edited under my name Zephram Stark until Wikipedia's little kangaroo court decided that I was gaining too much influence with editors who thought that Wikipedia should have integrity of definitions and that its terms should actually convey information.
While Wikipedia claims only to be an encyclopedia, everyone, especially Jimbo Wales, knows that it is used for much more. It is rapidly becoming the single common source of definitions for the English language. In doing so, it defines reality for English speaking countries by limiting the concepts we communally process. If a word such as "terrorism" is obfuscated out of existence, we no longer have an easy method of conveying the concept of a philosophy of using an overwhelming sense of imminent danger. Given that my country has gone three trillion dollars into debt to fight "terrorism," the source we use to define the word becomes of vital importance. People ask, "What are we fighting?" "How will we know when we have won?" We google "terrorism" and Wikipedia is right on top telling us that "terrorism" is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians.... How do I convey the concept of terror (an overwhelming sense of imminent danger) + ism (philosophy of...)? Great lexicographers like Webster defined our language with integrity in the past. Today, our methods of conveying information are limited to the lexicographical understanding of a former porn site owner and those who kiss his ass. The result is that we are so stupid as a civilization that we have no idea what we are fighting and no method of talking about why we shouldn't spend trillions of dollars doing it. --Ned Pierce 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Wikipedia is a lot like a fascist regime. Jimbo Wales is a dictator, but he has a right to be, since this is not a country but a Web site that he himself created. He is a benevolent dictator, though. Many administrators are not quite so benevolent, however, and often censor criticism and block people who they do not agree with, labeling them "trolls" and giving the excuse that they were "trolling" or being "disruptive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.158.118 (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Essay

Hi, is there some reason this essay doesn't use the {{Essay}} template, please? --Kjoonlee 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, because that box is ugly and this page is exposed to millions of readers, not editors, who don't need to be distracted by a notice at the top? --Cyde Weys 02:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there some policy that mandates that every project-space page has to have at least one stupid little colored box on it? Kelly Martin (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And, ironies of ironies, said policy is not locatable because it doesn't have {{policy}} on it. --Cyde Weys 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear!

10 things brings a tear to the eye of this seasoned Wikipedian. Hats off to those who created this essay. Paul 13:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

interwiki

please add: [[pl:Wikipedia:10_rzeczy_których_nie_wiedziałeś_o_Wikipedii]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.152.220 (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change?

Would anyone object moving this page to Wikipedia:Ten things you might not know about Wikipedia? --MZMcBride 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, that's silly; like moving WP:BEANS to Wikipedia:don't do unnecessary things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.47.137 (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What Amount of Falseness?

"We are not alone." -well, this is true, but it's followed by other Wikimedia projects, which does not support the assertion.

"We're not for sale." -what about those secret negotiations about possibly having Google host Wikipedia or pay for a significant portion of the costs? Something like that could happen at any time, I'd think. Politicians are usually supported by donations and grants too, which many people think biases them.

"You can't actually change anything in Wikipedia..." -if you're an admin, you can. And this brings us to...

"We're neither a dictatorship nor any other political system." -nonsense! The existence of registered accounts, admin status, sysops, Jimbo, Wikimedia Foundation, censorship, etc... is clearly political! Anarchopedia's attempt to use the same software to give everyone equal power... had its problems; the MediaWiki software itself encourages one political system; therefore even equality is political too. (although "political" is an annoying word.) Really - "is controlled by". "Bylaws". "self-governing". "consensus-driven". "final arbiter". It's not even pretending not to be political. It's blatantly lying in the opening heading (how can an important big human-driven thing not be political?) and then stating its ideals of what political system it wants to be (which don't entirely reflect the reality of what kind of political system it is).

"Articles in Wikipedia are not signed" -the GFDL requires content to be signed (in a certain sense), which is usually available on the History tab of the page.

"Granted, only about 70 of those Wikipedia language editions currently have more than 10,000 articles — but that is not because we're not trying." -I've heard arguments that the philosophy with which it's run, isn't very inviting to people around the world, and stories... that some other languages are thriving more freely because Jimbo doesn't know them and so can't intervene... (and open-proxy bans can exclude large segments of world population that has computers)

"These explanations should not surprise experienced editors" -one might say that they only don't surprise me because I'm cynical - which I don't consider myself to be: Or rather, that I've already run into the assertions and their arguments and counter-arguments before, though I doubt most have.

Luckily, it does not say "you can edit", even though the readers may not know that, because it's obviously not true: the readers who don't know that, probably can't edit this page, because, going to "view source" when logged out, "This page is currently semi-protected, and can only be edited by established registered users. ... * The reason for protection can be found in the protection log." Actually the reason can't be found in the linked protection log.

I suppose this page is a valuable idea, but created by the ideology that is all too typical on Wikipedia, and I don't know what to do with it. Several of my criticisms are still without enough evidence for me to be sure what I think. But I'm already not mentioning something I found on the Anarchopedia site that related to Wikipedia, because of fear of censorship/persecution.

With all the sincerity of my not-very-edited thoughts, —Isaac Dupree(talk) 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Machine translation

I've removed the statement that machine translation is never used, as it isn't true, I've fairly frequently used machine translation in translating Wikipedia articles. However, our project does have guidelines that machine translations should 1) always be post-editted and 2) should be done with the consent of the community. - Francis Tyers · 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_Wikipedia/Archive_1&oldid=1144740383"