Talk:Wikipedia

This is not the page to ask for help with using Wikipedia.

Taking sides

This article should be deleted Utter neologism. 69.39.49.27 (talk) If Wikipedia does not take sides than it should permit every one to post an article on themselves or their own project. 69.39.49.27 (talk) Wikipedia could be described as a homosocratic forum, but wikipedia decided that homosocratic is not a word because it only exists in academic documents not accessible to Google. 69.39.49.27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

• Wikipedia does not take a side.

This is not true. In several major public controversies, Wikipedia sides with "science", i.e. the viewpoint of the scientific mainstream. I don't know why this is seen as consistent with NPOV, as it seems to me to be endorsing the mainstream POV.

How large a majority must there be in a scientific dispute before Wikipedians may declare that there is a scientific consensus? Or how large must a a minority be before it is allowed to be covered in full? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we take a moment to call a spade a spade, please, and admit that in most "scientific controversies", the two sides are "observable fact" and "myth", and thus the rational "POV" to have is to side with observable fact? If all scientific evidence holds that the earth is, indeed, round, then do we really need to give the Flat Earth Society a platform in which to dispute the spherical nature of the planet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.55.0 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what controversies you're referring to. Anyway, since science is a combination of a method and an existing base of knowledge rather than a POV, using that knowledge is standard practice for encyclopedias; I don't see how that conflicts with NPOV, particularly since a scientific consensus doesn't necessarily match the most widely held views outside the scientific community. A scientific consensus may be declared in an article when it is considered such by independent, reliable sources (particularly ones that are specific to the field), so that issue would fall under verifiability instead of NPOV. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious what is meant. There are editors with some apparent standing on Wikipedia who go through and obsessively delete any criticism relating to the activities of big pharmaceutical corporations, agribusiness, and so forth. Go to any controversial topic in science and read the talk page, and view some of the edits on the history page (in fact, I do this now for almost any topic I am researching because it is the only way to get the whole truth). You will see these editors allow all studies FUNDED BY THESE CORPORATIONS but will delete even studies published in the most respectable journals or newspapers if they are critical, with an excuse basically amounting to, 'Other studies have shown X is not a problem, so these other studies are clearly just funded by people with an agenda'. View the talk on the page for Gardasil for example. When opinions of doctors that patients are suffering as a result of this vaccination are cited, this is censored as being unscientific, then the same editors turn around and add comments to the effect that there have been few to zero problems (because they have discounted all problems as basically concocted). This is information censored by large corporations who have minions monitoring Wikipedia for hours per day. I am not saying Wikipedia is actively colluding with profit-driven science, but they sure are not bending over backwards to keep articles neutral and punish editors writing propaganda pieces.

Science, when practiced well (i.e., honestly), has a good method for discovering truth. But what about when there are disputes over whether a particular bit of scientific work has been done honestly? What if other scientists report being unable to reproduce the results?

In other words, how are we contributors supposed to assess the independence and reliability of scientific sources? I refer in particular to the problems with the Anthropegenic Global Warming theory, held by the (journalistic) mainstream to be responsible for most of the past century's global warming. How are we as contributors to explain to readers whether essential things properly and not taking a side. Besides, the statement "Wikipedia does not take a side" is used in this article in the context of describing policy, not as a statement of what necessarily occurs in every case, so this discussion doesn't really have an impact on what the article on Wikipedia should say. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed's trying to drum up support to force content changes at various articles related to denialism he's has a history with, global warming, AIDS, science and ID. The history of this is covered in his RFAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.4.140 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic, but it is true that Wikipedia has often been accused of actually taking a side, no matter what its policies say. Conservapedia, for example, was founded because of perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia. Describing policies is a must, of course, but discussing the reality--or, more precisely, the reality that reliable sources depict, is also important, I think, and currently the article doesn't do this poorly. (It does discuss bias, but really not in depth: it has to include discussion on liberal bias, systemic bias and above-mentioned scientific bias.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuyaMurata (talk • contribs) 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Little defence for wikipedia: The accusation , quoting consevapedia:

link conservapedia accusation of wikipedia for liberal bias

Wikipedia show a "systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own NPOV policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a scientist who holds a minority view. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberalst use "undue weight" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias."

It been know that wikipedia work to be a good encyclopedia with a strong neutrality. And so, some mechanism are actually use to reduce the lack of neutrality of some article. yes and some days ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.197.220 (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Neutral point of view is ask to be use in any topic, include controversial one. The point of view from scientist who holds a minority view should not be give an important place in the scientific topic. However, the minority point of view accusation seem to point to some pseudo-scientific, like creationism, with are view also in this encyclopedias.

However, the neutral point of view is limited to unbiased information and several review, include the Nova Southeastern University, Nottingham University and the Gould Library at Carleton College in Minnesota found a really few factual error in different set of articles and even comparing wikipedia to Britanica.

And so, conservapedia is accuse of a strong, conservative systematical bias by different web site: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Bias_in_Conservapedia_(May_2007) http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/03/conservapedia-hopes-to-fix-wikipedias-liberal-bias.ars http://kriswager.blogspot.com/2007/07/tired-of-conservapedias-liberal-bias.html http://hnn.us/articles/37366.html http://apcmag.com/wikipedia_vs_conservapedia.htm

Even worst, even uncyclopedia make a strong fun about the bias in conservapedia: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Examples_of_Bias_in_Conservapedia

Wikipedia might have some bias, it is not perfect and never will be. But the community work to give better article, and it's seem to do a good job be some study. Conservapedia, on the other hand, don't receive this advertisement of quality and should work hard if they want to have the same quality of wikipedia. It is also know that any wiki should not use as the only source for research. Triple and quadruple "check" is always a good idea for any research, even in primary school.

This defence was not neutral, and was not intended to be.

Therrydicule —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therydicule (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is some bias in Wikipedia, but we as a community try to limit when possible, see our major rules. But we represent the truth, and science is the truth. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lifetime of vandalism

Dude, isn't "scholary work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived" only about one-eighth true? I mean, look it up. There are about four hundred articles from respectable sources that indicate that there is quite a bit of long-lasting vandalism. I'm trying to remember the article about that imaginary country... Also, not to be rude to any one person in particular, but "vandalism", in practice, is just as often something that the admin/person who wrote it doesn't like very much than something that was actually against the rules. Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, let me note that the qualification "generally" allows for many unusual cases. The Seigenthaler incident, for example, was an unusual case—although it received a great amount of press, it was not typical vandalism. There will always be such outliers as long as vandalism persists, and we don't want to risk confirmation bias as a result of selection bias on the part of the news sources. News sources are highly likely to be subject to such confirmation bias: stories detailing how an article wasn't vandalized never get run. Second, can you back up your claim of "about four hundred articles from respectable sources that indicate that there is quite a bit of long-lasting vandalism"? This would, after all, contradict at least somewhat the two reliable sources already cited. Finally, while I recognize that things often get mislabeled and not all admins are perfect, in general it's useful to recognize that things which are disruptive get reverted even if they're not technically vandalism. I don't see how that point is at all relevant to this article, though. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to say that because the editors of these reliable sources have their own definitions of vandalism or rely on Admin reports, it may become somewhat misleading. And while I have certainly read a great deal of those articles I mentioned, I am afraid that Google's fickality has made it somewhat difficult for my to locate them. And does anyone know what the name of that country one guy made up and posted here? It got covered by somebody, probably not a notable guy, I'm sure, but there must be some way I could look that up if I knew the name... The article lasted for a couple of months before people realised it was a hoax, if I remember correctly... which I probably don't. Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Squidoo.com be mentioned in list of competitors?

I think that Squidoo ought to be included--certainly if these three first-mentioned are, and each of thoes only gets a mere fraction of Squidoo's traffic, as you can see at http://www.alexa.com/. Thus, I think it should say:

"...such as Citizendium, Scholarpedia, Conservapedia, Squidoo, and Google's Knol"

Let me know what you think.

68.174.102.95 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia was mentioned recently on Simpsons (by Sideshow Bob

Include?Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but it might be appropriate on Wikipedia in culture --Cybercobra (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference to article on wikipedia

I think this page should note that wikipedia has an article on wikipedia. Dayyanb (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, why? It's obvious and not a big deal either. -- Taku (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone reading this article would already know that making it completly pointless. --76.66.188.127 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Life Project

spam blanked by Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipaedia

Removed per WP:FORUM Hadrian89 (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

infobox Website

What's wrong with just the screenshot? I think name= and logo= makes the infobox look cluttered.--Chuck (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

First article

What was the first Wikipedia article? Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Elephant in the Room

This is also the name of the website.