Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia

Note: This is the Talk page for the Wikipedia article on external criticisms of Wikipedia. Users interested in discussing their own problems with the project should go to the Village Pump where there are specific sections for dealing with various types of issue.

For critical takes on Wikipedia covered by Wikipedia itself, see Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005 (40 science articles) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-31/Guardian rates articles (7 articles of general interest).

Fanatics and Special Interests

Why are we using the word "fanatics"? Calling people involved in criticms of Wikipedia, especially the Christian Post article and Conservapedia, fanatics, is pejorative, insulting, and amounts to little more to substituting childish namecalling for any response to the points made by these people. StaticElectric 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that fanatic is too strong a word and per Wikipedia policy is most likely a word to avoid. I renamed the section with the new title "Strong point of view editing," not sure if this is the best title for that section so feel free to change it to something more appropriate.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIAJIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kidding lol. this article seems like its criticizing itself just to let ya know. --Storkian aka iSoroush ^Talk 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Query about wikipedia data backup/recovery plans if wikipedia main server crashes

In Wikipedia Signpost interview dated 10 September 2007, WS asked question to wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales: 'As a follow up, does the Foundation have data backup/recovery plans in place should a disaster occur?'.

In reply to this question, Jimbo wales replied: 'Ask User:Brion VIBBER. I am not really qualified to answer detailed technology related questions'

According to Jimmy Wales, User talk:Brion VIBBER is competent to answer the question. But User talk:Brion VIBBER may not read this question on his talk page and can be contacted only by email. And emails are not reliable source according to wikipedia policy. Hence whether wikipedia foundation has data backup/recovery plans is unclear.

I just want to whether wikipedia has such plans in place. If yes, please answer it here with reliable source. If no, please allow me to post single line that, 'whether wikipedia has data backup/recovery plans in place if disaster occurs to wikipedia main server is unclear'.

I believe I am commenting on very important question by giving reference to interview with Jimbo Wales.

I politely request wikipedia editors/administrators not to push me too far. Otherwise unfortunate situation may arise and wikipedia will have to block three IP addresses. And that is like blocking one billion peoples and cellphone users in almost all countries on earth.

I politely request you to either answer my query or allow me to post single line.

I've tried to explain on your talk page that original research, unsourced personal opinion, and unsupported speculation can't be included in Wikipedia articles. I am restoring sourced, accurate information about what Jimbo said in his Signpost interview and about WP's periodic database dumps, which are made publically available to help insure against catastrophic data loss. Please stop inserting your speculations and opinions into the article with no support or sources. Thank you. Casey Abell 14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Casey and I apologize for my frequent edits.

When I figure out this database dump, I will write article for average reader and Jimbo Wales.

But I have figured out that google, yahoo catch almost all wikipedia articles every week or so. Hence nothing to worry about data loss.

You may remove my addition to 'prediction of failure' section if you think it is unwarranted there. If I remove it, someone may consider it as 'vandalism'.

Thanks very much.

abhishka 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

quality of writing on Wikipedia

I am a bit surprised and disappointed to see that one of the most common (and in my opinion, important) criticisms of Wikipedia is not even mentioned on this discussion page, namely that the writing is often of extremely poor quality. I notice that "waffling prose and antiquarianism" (an oddly Victorian turn of phrase which might invite the criticism of . . . well, waffling prose and antiquarianism) is included, but that isn't really the point. One advantage that traditional encyclopaedias have over Wikipedia is the relatively uniform and generally conscientious application of certain minimal standards in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. While many Wikipedia articles are very well written and literate, an alarmingly high number are not. Am I alone in thinking this? Am I wrong? If I am, I won't mention it again and you can delete this comment as irrelevant. Just a small thought by way of constructive criticism. Mardiste 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't support deleting comments because they're irrelevant or wrong, and I think consensus is with me on this. We need to have sources in order to add more criticism to the article. It must be published somewhere, as in a magazine or newspaper, because Wikipedia doesn't provide unverifiable content. A.Z. 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I found an applicable quote from, guess who, Andrew Orlowski on the general problem of poor writing in Wikipedia. I added it to the "waffling prose and antiquarianism" section as a generalization of what Rosenzweig said about WP's history articles. By the way, I personally think the overall quality of WP writing is much better than Rosenzweig and Orlowski concede. Casey Abell 01:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that while the main articles are normally, but not always, well written, the Discussion forum contains very many contributions that show a lamentable lack of education on the part of the authors. This manifests itself, inter alia, in poor grammar, spelling and punctuation. I have also found that "uncomfortable" comments on my part have been deleted, sometimes with accusations of trolling, whilst semi-literate, racist and sectarian entries have been allowed to remain. I'm hoping to join Citizendium, which seems to be a more scholarly forum. Millbanks 09:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with about the quality of the forum entries. I've found myself mis-spelling words and omitting minor ones altogether. The main articles get refined and move towards perfection while the discussion sections are left alone almost completely so as to maintain an accurate history of the discussion, and to help know who said what? I'll grant you there are more scholarly places to be, but what works? Citizendium has an Alexa rank of 95,323 while WP is around 9th. I am still predicting that the two will merge some day. Nanabozho 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of Articles

In my opinion this is a key criticism of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN Antony272b2 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

I would like to see some of the dated external links (those that are news articles posted on a particular day) to be folded into the main text as inline references. I think that this should be done even if it requires that new assertions be made in the text. The process is simple: read the external article, read this article and find a home for the link. Again: if the external article makes an interesting and relevant claim not in the Wikipedia article does not, then add a new sentence to the article and add the link as an inline citation and remove from the external links section. Maybe we should have a template that suggests such.--Mightyms 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

De Facto Leader

Why in the devil does it say that Jimmy Wales is the de facto leader of Wikipedia 3 times? I think most readers of this page probably could care less from knowing that he is so much cooler than us "mere mortals", that it has to be mentioned 3 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.208.225 (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I screwed up.

Could someone please delete sub-page Criticism of Wikipedia/Criticism of the concept. I mis-read the guidelines. --Cat Lover 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^(t.l) 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia peaked?

Please take a look at the graph at the blog here. I think it is because of developing negative internal dynamics and the inability of the administrative staff to keep up with the growth of users. The project is far from complete. Should something like this be addressed in this article?--Filll 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The slowdown in growth is definitely a possibility for the article. You can find a balancing viewpoint here. All sorts of caveats, though, especially because the slowdown finding is based on a (large) sample of articles rather than complete stats on all articles. And it's only a supposed slowdown in the rate of growth, not a stoppage of all growth or an actual shrinking. The encyclopedia is still expanding at a brisk pace – there has definitely been no peak in the total size of Wikipedia. Also, outside media haven't picked up the story much, so maybe we should wait a little to see if it develops into anything major. Casey Abell 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have realized that this comes from a very interesting page on Wikipedia. If you click on the image, you get directed to pages of User:Dragons flight with a lot of interesting discussion about this:[1] I hope it turns into an article especially if we can find someone outside who picks up on this so it is not OR.--Filll 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion on the talk page of the analysis. Several people are challenging the declining rate of growth argument, and there are some graphs which show that the rate of growth has actually increased recently. Again, all this looks like premature OR for the article right now. Casey Abell 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is too early, particularly since it has really received minimal interest in secondary sources so far. But it is quite interesting. I am quite interested in the subject personally, so I will keep an eye out for any further mention outside of WP.-- Filll 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Humorous Critcism

Encyclopedia Dramatica is not an attack site. I see no harm in putting a link to the site there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.59.46 (talk • contribs)

There has been a broad consensus for quite some time that ED does not meet the requirements of WP:NOTE, nor of WP:EL. If you wish to argue for its inclusion, you would be best advised to do so in terms of those guidelines. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to WR?

Some editors have been edit warring a link to Wikipedia Review into and out of the external links section here. I don't think that site is a source to which we should link, per WP:EL. Until consensus can be demonstrated that its value as a source is sufficient for us to use, I propose that the link not be used. Accordingly, I've removed it from the article, and I've created this section to facilitate discussion of the site's merit as a source. Opinions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that site is extremely meritorious of inclusion here; it's the best-known of all the critical sites, is actually fairly well moderated, has interesting discussions, and besides, every damn administrator here who's worth his or her salt reads the site. Should definitely be mentioned in the article (as they say, whether you like the site or not). +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I neither like nor dislike it; besides, my feelings about it are irrelevant. Apparently I'm not worth my salt, either. Thanks for the input, anyhow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... reinserting the link "per discussion" means that you think a consensus has been demonstrated. That takes more than one posting. I won't edit war with you, but... do you seriously believe that link has consensus support? :( -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ex post facto. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you please unpack that answer a little bit? I don't know how something can have "ex post facto" consensus. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES strikes again. The top page of Wikipedia Review contains nothing offensive in any way, unless a critical attitude towards Wikipedia is considered offensive in itself. I often read the forum to view criticism of Wikipedia that is unavailable on the encyclopedia itself. A couple threads have been personally critical of me, but I can live with that. Among other notable items, Wikipedia Review help break the Essjay story. The BADSITES crowd censored linking to the site on Essjay controversy. Now they want to banish all mention of it here. This is typical of a scared, silly, censorious attitude. Instead of selectively removing links to threads on the site which may be unacceptable, the BADSITERS rise up in holy horror at the entire site – which makes Wikipedia look like a timid old maid from the 1840s.

Yanking all links to Wikipedia Review is disruptive, unnecessary, and unjustified by policy or ArbCom decisions. Now the article has been protected in its scared and silly form, where we can't even mention one of the leading criticism sites. More BADSITES insanity. Casey Abell 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Not BADSITES. I'm questioning the appropriateness of this link in this article per WP:EL. ArbCom said that the inclusion of such links is a matter for sound editorial judgment, and that's the question I'm trying to raise. The article was being edit warred without any accompanying talk page discussion. This is where we should be discussing, not each others' motivations ("scared, silly, censorious attitude," which is ad hominem and unnecessary), but we should be discussing how this link does or does not meet the criteria laid out in WP:EL. Is there any way we can discuss that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In particular, from our external links guideline:

Links normally to be avoided

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.

12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

I question the suitability of the link to Wikipedia Review per these guidelines, not per some misguided "attack sites" policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, of course it's BADSITES. The users removing the link have been among the most prominent supporters of this nonsensical non-policy. As for the EL argument, Wikipedia Review has often been dead-on in its factual accuracy and citation of relevant diffs from Wikipedia. I mentioned the Essjay controversy, and a major contributor to the site was also a key player in the Siegenthaler incident. If a site that often offers accurate and important criticism of Wikipedia can't be linked in Criticism of Wikipedia, what can be linked? If a specific thread from Wikipedia Review is objectionable on EL grounds, then remove the link to that thread. But removal of every link to the entire site is exactly BADSITES, and it exactly resembles censorship and Victorian-old-maid silliness. Casey Abell 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never supported that policy, and I'm the guy you're talking to now, and all I'm willing to talk about is WP:EL. That's what ArbCom charged the community with doing: exercising sound editorial judgment, per the consensus-based wiki model. I'm trying to determine whether there is a consensus that WR meets EL. That's all.

Now, you ask "if WR can't be linked, what can?" That's easy to answer; look at WP:EL. We can use sites that are reliable sources, offering notable views, and which publish responsible, verified information. Is WR one of those, in the case of this article? That's my question. I'm not "removing every link" to anything; check my contributions. If you think I have any interest in "Victorian-old-maid" silliness... heh, heh... you don't know who you're talking to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're concerned about EL, then apply it on a link-by-link basis, as any policy on references should be applied. If a link to WR or any other site violates EL criteria, remove the link. But blanket removal of every link to Wikipedia Review is silly, censorious and an exact example of BADSITES. The link to the top page of WR does not mislead anybody or violate any other criterion for referencing material relevant to this article. We already reference in this article many criticisms of Wikipedia that I think are unfair, misleading and downright dumb. (That asinine image from Encyclopedia Dramatica is the groaner of all time, for instance.) I haven't removed those links because I believe the reader should be given the right to decide on the validity of the criticisms. I only wish that other editors would stop removing links merely because they don't like the site where the link resides...which is the exact definition of BADSITES. Casey Abell 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have I removed more than one link? Have I even removed that one more than once, ever?! You tell me to apply the policy on a link-by-link basis; that's precisely what I'm trying to do here, and you, instead of paying any attention, are accusing me of supporting a policy of which I'm one of the most vocal opponents. Now at what point will you be prepared to put the ad hominems aside and talk with me about this particular link in the context of EL? Why do I have to beg for this?

I have been extremely frustrated with the purges of which you speak, and that is precisely why I am trying to refocus the discussion on policy, one link at a time, patiently and with application of "sound editorial judgment", as ArbCom requested. Now... can we talk about the policy already, or would to make up some more bullshit about me first? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with GTBacchus in this respect. If the link is to be included, there needs to be a value judgment about the encyclopedic value of the link with respect to the article, from the perspective of a reader of an encyclopedia, not a player of inside-wikipedia baseball. What value does that link provide? We do not (currently) link to creationist claptrap sites when discussing the Piltdown Man. MOASPN 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) Thanks very much for noticing what I was actually saying, MOASPN. What's really annoying about Casey Abell's reaction is that I'm attempting to model correct practices here. I removed the link one time, posted immediately on the talk page (which previous removers neglected to do), and I cited policy, without making any kind of remotely personality-based or ILIKEIT-style argument, and he jumps down my throat for some mass action of which I've never been a part. I'm sorry for venting; I'm finished now. I entreat all of us to try to refrain from jumping to conclusions about each others' motives. If I've made the same mistake without noticing, I guess that would be typical, and I'm sure someone will point it out to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think GTBacchus is getting some of the flak from people frustrated with the whole BADSITES business, which is not really fair since he's one of the more reasonable and thoughtful people out of the group that is generally against such links. I still disagree with much of his position, but if everybody in the debate was as fair and reasonable as him there wouldn't be nearly the level of heat and acrimony that there's been. Now, back to the real topic: while links to forums are discouraged as sources, that's not how the link in question is being used; it's explicitly there as a link to a prominent forum for discussing Wikipedia criticism. As such, I think it belongs here. *Dan T.* 02:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess when pro-BADSITES people think I'm anti-BADSITES and anti-BADSITES people think I'm pro-BADSITES, I must be doing something right, yeah? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a broken record, but "What value does that link provide?" Stating that "it's a very prominent forum" doesn't even take a step there - there are lots of very prominent things that linking to provides no value to our readers. Reading this specific forum as a non-player of inside wikipedia actually misinforms our readers - it is like linking to a creationist claptrap site on the article about the Piltdown Man. There are many good criticizers of Wikipedia - is the goal of linking to this rubbish to discredit real problems? If so, I suggest said strategy is backfiring, and leaving our readers stupider. MOASPN 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with GTBacchus here. WR does not pass muster with WP:EL, whether you consider it a GOODSITE, a BADSITE, or an UGLYSITE. ah-AH-ah-AH-aahhhh wah-WAH-wah... :) - Crockspot 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Novus Ordo Seclorum

Four out of the five people who removed the link make comment that make me suspect the believe some policy REQUIRES the deletion-- they are clearly in error about this. But GTBacchus clearly states that's NOT his concern, that he considers the matter to be something to be decided by consensus, and that he's not acting out of a blanket purge mentality-- and I believe him on all counts.

Furthermore-- as much as I would love a nice test case to prove to everyone BADSITES is dead once and for all, I think I have to actually agree with GT on this. This article is about "Criticism of wikipedia", not "Critics of wikipedia". Looking over the article, it seems like we have no shortage of good secondary sources, so we should be able to satisfy WP:V without resorting to a primary source. WR, as a forum, isn't a very good EL, since it presents its content in threaded conversation instead of static prose. If it were a different article and WR merited mention in the text, I think NPOV would say we'd have to link to it. But honestly, given the current article, it looks just kinda tacked on at the end, just sort of hanging there. If it were notable enough to have its own article, or it there are enough news stories to support an article about the "critics of wikipedia", that might make an article, but I'm skeptical that subject is sufficiently notable to have enough reliable secondary sources.

But this is the beauty of living in a post-BADSITES world. We get to actually decide these things based on what's best for the encyclopedia. We get to talk about it, share our views, swap ideas, and form a consensus-- rather than having the answer dictated to us.

When the link was first removed from this page, I took it for a blind "vandalism-esque" deletion based on BADSITES-- I would have instantly reverted it, and fought to defend it. But now that we're being encouraged to actually form consensus again, we wind up having a discussion. And GTBacchus, invariably one of the most reasonable people in the room, has made an excellent point, eloquently explained it to me why this particular link isn't a very good one, and changed my mind anyway.

So for those that doubted-- let it be seen. The revolution was never about promoting our critics-- it was about improving our encyclopedia. :) --Alecmconroy 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we'll leave out the link. I think it's silly that we can't link to the top page of a forum which has often provided valuable and accurate criticism of Wikipedia - criticism which was hardly "claptrap", to use one of the nouns tossed around. Some people might not like the role that WR played in the Essjay incident, the Siegenthaler incident, the media attention to plagiarism on Wikipedia, etc. But that doesn't mean we should censor all mentions of the site. I'm in the minority here, so I'll bow to BADSITES. But I'll put on record that I don't like the censorship. Casey Abell 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

{{fact}} MOASPN 12:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact tag is kind of funny. I could provide the requested references to threads on WR that discussed Siegenthaler, Essjay and plagiarism on Wikipedia - but I'm not allowed to link to them! The BADSITES catch-22. Casey Abell 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I could create a blog with discussions on Siegenthaler, Essjay and plagiarism on Wikipedia that state that the blog was the source that broke each of those. If there are reliable third-party sources commenting on this forum's activities, please present them. Forums, as self published sources, are not reliable. MOASPN 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, try Essjay controversy for WR's role in the Essjay mess. But you probably wouldn't consider that reliable, either. I shouldn't even point out the reference, because it will probably now get scoured from the encyclopedia, as many other mentions of WR are disappearing. I couldn't disagree more that BADSITES is "behind us." Renamed in an Orwellian fashion as MALICIOUSSITES (principle 15.1 of the ArbCom decision) the policy is being used to get rid of links to WR throughout Wikipedia. See JzG's contribution page if you don't believe me. But as I said, I've surrendered on the issue. This will be my final comment on the matter. Casey Abell 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Verify source}} - source does not state anything about Wikipedia Review. I've flagged it for review. MOASPN 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia 'review' is still quite clearly a bad source of information. Brandt's well connected to the LaRouche crackpots, and the ArbCom decision is still highly relevant to that can of worms. 123.255.55.62 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the recent blind-insertion of the innapropriate external link, I question the initial comment. While it appears those in support of a BADSITES proposal were focused on encyclopedic value, at least some of those in opposition were certainly not. MOASPN 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It does little good for the discussion to characterize people on either side as "blindly" doing things or as "not focused on encyclopedic value". *Dan T.* 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Casey Abell for finding so diligently these sources. After our flurry of edits over the last couple of days, the article is better sourced and more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the very kind note. Maybe I shouldn't say it, but this article has to be one of the easiest to source in the entire encyclopedia. Type Wikipedia NPOV or Wikipedia sources or Wikipedia just-about-anything into Google, and you get a flood of stuff. The Internet is loaded with criticism of this encyclopedia. Casey Abell 23:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi is right that the sourcing is improved. Separately, I see that there seem to be several blogs in the "external links" section. WP:EL says:

• Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Are there recognized authorities on Wikipedia? I know some grad students have published studies on it, so I suppose they'd qualify. Anyone else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no response I'm guessing there's no defense of the inclusion of blogs in the external links. I'll be bold and remove them. If anyone wants to show how individual blogs are written by recognized authorities on Wikipedia then I'd be happy to see those restored. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article deletions

Wikipedia article deletions are affecting our donations to the extent that it is notable news about Criticism of Wikipedia. If we created the article Wikipedia article deletions sourced with those news reports we could at least have a place that mentions and says something about stuff that does not otherwise warrant an article and redirects could be created pointing at that article. Might help with fundraising too. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea. Anyone care to give it a shot? WAS 4.250 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof that Wikipedia is being used for spying

See this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Begantable (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nifty graphic. All the info shown there can be gleaned from information available to any wikipedia user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we can't even mention Encyclopedia Dramatica

I'm not going to revert any more on this. But I'll put on record my objection to attempts to eliminate even a mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica from this article. Like it or not, ED is now a very popular parody of Wikipedia, and efforts to hide this fact are, in my opinion, foolish and counterproductive. One thing's for sure, I never want to hear "Wikipedia is not censored" again.

And by the way, a backhand reference to ED remains in the article. Casey Abell (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a mention of ED cited to its mention in a New York Times Magazine article. If they thought it was important, it certainly merits four words in one paragraph at the end of the article. 75.175.3.211 (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Open Source Software Preferential Treatment

Maybe it is in the nature of the two systems but there appears to be a preference for open source software on Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles about open source software which should is questioned as far as its notability while commercial software is not found even though it is widely used in a particular profession. The commercial software is possibly deleted because it could be an advertisement. 98.195.185.125 (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia

I just stumpled across conservapedia and felt a little sick, they spout hatred, thank the lord (oh dont worry that`s not me being conserative) for intelligence here on wiki. Realist2 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By their fruits ye shall know them.--Filll (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

original research?

"There are indications that academics' view of Wikipedia may have improved during the last few years. There has been an increase in the number of citations of Wikipedia in international scientific journals, though this may be at least partly the result of the greater prominence of the project."

I do not like the section that starts like this. "There are indications [...] may have improved"... this sounds very vague. I find two words in that sentence that are very vague and are leaning more to weasel words than referring to a source.

The section goes on presenting some statistics over some site ScienceDirect. Where is the source for this? This looks like original research.

This section just states some claims that might be correct, and doesn't ever refer to a source. It should be removed.

Besides that, I love Wikipedia and do not agree with most of what this article has to say... so don't you think I'm criticizing this section because I'm some Wikipedia-basher... PureRumble 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki-deathstar.png

Image:Wiki-deathstar.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when is Encyclopedia Dramatica an "anti-wikipedia fansite"?

It isn't, and just because some guy from New York Times called it that does not make it so. It's a website that catalogs and satirizes internet culture and drama, and Wikipedia is certainly targetted often in that regard, but there's so much more to the site. Shouldn't this line be rephrased? Perhaps it should just say... Satire also exists in the form of parody encyclopedias such as Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica. Thoughts? Caleb462 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Actually the NYT calls it a "Wikipedia anti-fansite" which might or might not be subtly different from what we've got. I think calling it a satirical or parody wiki is probably a safe description that's true to the source and to reality. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When I added it, I chose that wording just to conform to the source as much as possible. Given the amount of ED-phobia around here I was trying to give the least possible grounds for a hater trying to remove it. --arkalochori ^|talk| 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but like GTBacchus said, I think the rephrasing is both true to the source and true to reality. I don't think anyone could make a solid argument for removing it. 67.33.214.249 18:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Register article about the November 18th block

While I am sure that this probably needs a paragraph or two, it seems that (a) you are cribbing almost directly from the Register article, using mostly direct quotes instead of actually writing a Wikipedia article and (b) at least one of the editors identified by user name is not actually identified by any name in the Register article, so including his user name is original research. This particular article is way too much of a battlefield for me to play around with, but I just want to point out that we *do* have some quality standards here, and it would be nice if the criticism article would uphold them. Risker 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed all the direct quotes that weren't comments from people. Cla68 is linked to from Charles Ainsworth in the article. --arkalochori ^|talk| 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean Giano II. He is not mentioned by name in the article at all, just as a "rogue editor." We all know it is Giano, but the source has not chosen to include that information. Risker 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it did link to his page when it said that Wales' scolded the "rogue editor" in question. --arkalochori ^|talk| 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, good point, I had not specifically noted that, although I assume it was to quote Jimbo rather than "out" Giano. This may require some additional input from others. Risker 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No I think you were right. The article specifically detailed Cla68, Kelly Martin, and Dan Tobias, while never referring to Giano by name. I assume there was a point to that decision. --arkalochori ^|talk| 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is primarily a bunch of gossip and rumors. It is just fodder for people who confuse criticism of Wikipedia with malicious bad will and disruption.--Cberlet 03:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Before restoring the text, can we discuss why rumor and gossip deserves so much detailed text? It is bogus.--Cberlet 03:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any rumour or gossip in it. It is remarkably factual, although not necessarily good publicity. Since it is from a reliable source, and the author is not historically a Wikipedia critic but rather a journalist of some repute, let's leave it alone where it is and talk about it. Risker 03:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The text that was written was entirely POV from an anti-Jimbo anti-leadership POV. There was very little factual material in the text. I rewrote parts of the text to make it less hysterical and less POV. The article itself is a good example of bloated hype. Most Wikipedians never heard of the incident, and most who did probably thought it was a silly mistake and quickly dealt with. I think a discussion of cyberstalking, bullying, Testosterone Madness Syndrome, and aggressive anti-Wiki disruption is long overdue. But no matter what I think, the text was highly POV, negatiove, and breathless.--Cberlet 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are even discussing a tabloid here? I have removed the material. In any other article, such material would not survive 5 minutes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Jossi, you better get to work...here are the first 1000 links to The Register[2]. Have a good evening, I am sure you can find others to help you. Risker 04:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not give a hoot if there are 10,000 links to The Register. A tabloid is not a reliable source as per WP:V#Sources, in particular when it relates to living people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're the admin here, Jossi. Since you've made that determination, it's up to you to fix the problem or find others to help you. If you aren't interested in cleaning up the other articles yourself, you could always just make a post at WP:AN, and I am sure everyone will help out, just as they would if there was a CSD backlog. Risker 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you are an editor, same as me. Adminship has nothing to do with it,. If something is broken. fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think The Register is a pretty reliable source, if a bit over the top in this case, and so do hundreds of other editors who have used it, as there are 1835 wiki-links to it. You're the one who says it's a problem, Jossi, not me. Risker 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I did fix it, in this article. Feel free to fix it in other articles if warranted. A source may be OK to use in one context and not OK in another. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

*singing* You just don't wanna admit there's a cabal; you don't wanna admit there's a cabal. *puts down karaoke microphone* Seriously, I called it, over a year and a half ago. You're just sore that admins have actually been caught doing the things we've all suspected 'em of doing behind the curtain for a while now. (Yes, I did log in for the first time in months just to gloat. Yes, I don't know you personally, but unfortunately I have to assume that all admins are out to get me and people like me, who were once interested in edit quality instead of edit quantity.) - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)