Talk:Wikipedia

This is not the page to ask for help with using Wikipedia or other random questions.

One-page articles?

Since this is the talk page of the article of wikipedia itself.. I would like to know why wikipedia's articles always consist of only one page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.158.3 (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

While this is a question best suited for the Wikipedia help desk, I'll answer it here. Wikipedia's articles consist of one page because this is simpler in several ways:

• on a technical level, single-page articles are easier to get the software to render
• on a formatting level, avoiding page breaks is convenient, as page breaks interrupt an otherwise smooth flow of text
• on a practical level, there is no reason that a web-based page cannot extend to the length of several paper pages
• on the reader's level, not having to open a new page to continue reading the same article is convenient

I would presume that these are good enough reasons for Wikipedia's one-page layout. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

On a technical level, single page articles are harder for the software to render (assuming that single page does NOT refer to the lack of words in an article, but the act of smashing articles into a single section instead of breaking them up.) On a formatting level page breaks CREATE transitions between information. Removing page breaks reduces a readers ability to decern what that reader is reading, as section titles and subsection titles do not "float" allowing easy reference. Additionally, assuming you are referencing formating wikipedia like a book, showing less information at the cost of more pages helps aleviate any stress imposed upon the reader by sheer content. (And, of course, table of contents bars, hot links... are more accessable when the reader does not need to stop reading and scroll to the top of the page. On the PRACTICAL level there is NO EXCUSE for having a web based page extending to the length of several paper lengths. It's even in the wikipedian's guide book "don't exceed 50k" or what not. And if we're going to debate "practical", you have to realize that it is NOT practical to increase the load on the servers because you couldn't find the clearly labled hyperlink to the section of the article you wanted because you never read the article to begin with. (See Internet vs Reading). On the readers level, not being required to click a hyperlink surpasses all! Why not have all wikipedia articles become one! Never click a hyperlink again!

• veracity*

Just because it makes the point, the BIG reason why people should not mash articles together. How many wiki articles reference eachother? How many include their own section explaining the other article? How many of those sections get corrected with the original article (or how many are incorrect assumptions based off the original article or even questionable sources?) The key to an encyclopedia is not information, but consistancy... and that is a major fault point for wikipedia. As long as pages that are split off reform in the main article there will always be consistancy errors... (you only need a small annotation if anything, WHY insist that we transfer the information in the linked article to the main article)

There is one and one reason only to have wikipedia's articles seamless. So lazy people can use the find function instead of read... and quite probally plaugerize instead of learn. If you are offended by my comments, do protest. I won't read it but it'll make you feel better. _{This comment has not been signed on the basis that requiring a person to sign their comments is a violation of free speech and only serves to discriminate against those who are quick to the gun}

"operated by"

The article says wikipedia is "operated by the Wikimedia Foundation". What does this mean? It is mainly maintained and updated by Wikipedians, not by the foundation, which is what 'operated by' often means; the servers are supported and hosted by the Foundation. Perhaps "supported by" would be more accurate. +sj + 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I keep thinking of different verbs, but none quite fits. Wikipedia's maintained on a corporate level by the WMF (think legal stuff, press, etc.), on a financial level (they do all the donation stuff), and on a technical level (they hire devs and server ops and acquire the hardware), but on a practical level, that stuff wouldn't mean much without the core community and content. With the corporate and technical levels, "operated" is not itself inaccurate, but probably misleading to anyone not already familiar with the basics (that the community runs the site itself). "Maintained", "managed", and "administered" are similarly misleading. I'm hesitant to apply "supported" because of the potential implications that Wikipedia is somehow separate from Wikimedia, but I can't think of a better verb, so I'll change to "supported" in the text for now—should someone come up with another verb later, it would be worth discussion. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP??

Why is there a blp notice at the top of this talk page? +sj + 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea; I've therefore removed it. This article isn't a biography. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it was because of the way it deals/dealed with Jimbo Wales and/or Larry Sanger. But don't ask me what is/was the problem, I am not very aware of that... SF007 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexa rankings

I am no expert on Alexa rankings, but visiting Alexa, it seems as if Wikipedia has moved up to six. Can someone please verify and correct, please? LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC^talk 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Still seems to be in 8th place: [2] and [3] SF007 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Documentaries

"The first documentary film about Wikipedia, entitled Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story, is scheduled for 2009 release. Shot on several continents, the film will cover the history of Wikipedia and feature interviews with Wikipedia editors around the world. Dutch filmmaker IJsbrand van Veelen premiered his 45-minute documentary The Truth According to Wikipedia in April, 2008." [quoted from the article]

As a matter of curiosity, if The Truth According to Wikipedia is a documentary which premiered in April, 2008, how can Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story be the first documentary film about Wikipedia? Samuel Robbins (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Because "The Truth According" is a TV documentary while "Truth in" is a theatrically released (will-be-released) film? -- Taku (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I was misled by the phrase "Dutch filmmaker IJsbrand". Thank you. Samuel Robbins (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I must say that it does sound a bit awkward: the "first documentary film" given that this article is about Wikipedia. That kind of phrases should be found in the articles of filmmakers or films. Since this is so minor issue, I don't bother myself fixing it. -- Taku (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I Find this article a bit humerous

Wikipedia (pronunciation ) is a free,[5] multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia. That's like having Bill Gates say, "Bill Gates is a multibillionair owner/part inventor of the PC. It'slike talking about yourself in thirdperson. Maybe this article should redirect to [4] but even that has the same problem as this. It's just weird.--70.190.36.152 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)