Jump to content

Talk:Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Line 100: Line 100:
Is this true? A reference (that is this one [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/wikipedia.org/?metric=uv]) is given, but I can't find this number mentioned in the source. The source says only that the monthly traffic is 53,312,459. I also don't think why the traffic from the US is relevant in the lead section. I mean, why US?, which is just a country. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this true? A reference (that is this one [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/wikipedia.org/?metric=uv]) is given, but I can't find this number mentioned in the source. The source says only that the monthly traffic is 53,312,459. I also don't think why the traffic from the US is relevant in the lead section. I mean, why US?, which is just a country. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


The population of the US is less than half of that... <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.136.92.148|72.136.92.148]] ([[User talk:72.136.92.148|talk]]) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The population of the US is less than half of that... oh I see. They mean annual traffic. 53.3 mil x 12 = 683 mil <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.136.92.148|72.136.92.148]] ([[User talk:72.136.92.148|talk]]) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Discussion==
==Discussion==

Revision as of 01:23, 1 August 2008

Former featured articleWikipedia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleWikipedia has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 1, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
September 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 25, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article


Wiki-rampage

My friends and I (and most everyone I know) uses the term "wiki-rampage", "wikipedia rampage" or similar statements to denote the fact that one can link click on links to a chain of references so that one forgets the original topic he/she was pursuing. I think it deserves an article or something more prevalent in the definition of Wikipedia, as it is used more and more often as a tangible reference.

Do you know any reliable source documenting this? (I don't mean to be sarcastic; I'm curious.) -- Taku (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] Probably not quite what you're looking for, but I bet the forum replies to this might be a good place to start. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac, Wikipedia hack?

Over the last 2 days while I have been viewing various pages of wikipedia I have come across some sort of apparent hack. The articles of whatever page I was viewing have been replaced by total black, with various messages in white text by sombody known as "zodiac", as well as a code of some sort apparently including his social security number and a picture of a celtic style cross. I am extremely curious to know what exactly is known about this "zodiac" thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.24.27 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just vandalism and nonsense. One of the prolific vandals is doing it, and to whatever templates are both relatively widely-used and unprotected, so that the vandalism appears on the maximum number of pages. It's being dealt with just as vandalism is usually dealt with: it's reverted, the user is blocked (and we don't bother to give warnings first when it's obviously one of these repeat vandals), and we usually protect the template from further vandalism. Then we go about as usual, we ignore them: giving them prominence would only encourage them to continue. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia attracts 683 million visitors (from the US)

Is this true? A reference (that is this one [2]) is given, but I can't find this number mentioned in the source. The source says only that the monthly traffic is 53,312,459. I also don't think why the traffic from the US is relevant in the lead section. I mean, why US?, which is just a country. -- Taku (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The population of the US is less than half of that... oh I see. They mean annual traffic. 53.3 mil x 12 = 683 mil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I removed

" In a 2008 interview, Jimmy Wales said that the foundation spent $2 million of donor money in 2007 toward site maintenance costs.[1] The foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, a for-profit company founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. The Wikimedia Foundation received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the fiscal year ending June 30 2006.[2]

In The New York Times in March 2008, Wales discussed a possible trivia game based on Wikipedia.[3]

from the paragraph it was pasted in. I think part of this text should (could) be reinserted in another paragraph, but probably not the same. Basically, most of that stuff belong to history now. I find a headtitle in this article "Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia" slightly misleading to say the least. Wikia has not done anything special for our project for the past 2 years, except for sponsoring Wikimania (and yet, we do not mention sponsors in that page). Historically speaking, it is interesting to note that Wikimedia Foundation received 6000 dollars worth for office space from Wikia in 2006, but does this information REALLY belong to the Wikipedia article ? I think not. Also, the paragraph still mentions that the Foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, which is clearly incorrect. I think that unless people can prove that this is true, it does not belong to this page.

Regarding the "possible trivia game", I think it is really a detail. Seriously, the Foundation staff (now operating the Foundation) is in charge of such decisions, not Jimbo. And the Foundation staff receive dozen of such proposals every month. What is really important in the long run ? What is really set up (eg, a DVD version, a print version etc...), or the mention that Jimbo thought a trivia game might be done, perhaps, one day, in the future, if such is decided by the staff and a good deal is proposed.

Last, I decided to mention chapters. This is bold, in particular in the english version. But to be fair, some chapters have a serious influence on some languages (eg, the german chapter on the german wikipedia) and several have contributed serious money (FAR more serious than the 6000 dollars worth from Wikia). Not mentionning chapters but putting a headline about Wikia... seems to me to not be reflecting the reality of what is happening right now.

Please discuss :-)

Anthere (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Wales spent $2m of donor money to maintain Wikipedia
  2. ^ Wikimedia Foundation 2006–2007 Audit page 9 says "The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc."
  3. ^ Noam Cohen (2008-03-17). "Open-Source Troubles in Wiki World". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)