Talk:Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
There is no criticism or controversy section on Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be biased even to itself. I have probably am not the only one to make this complaint. [[Special:Contributions/216.105.64.140|216.105.64.140]] ([[User talk:216.105.64.140|talk]]) 05:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
There is no criticism or controversy section on Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be biased even to itself. I have probably am not the only one to make this complaint. [[Special:Contributions/216.105.64.140|216.105.64.140]] ([[User talk:216.105.64.140|talk]]) 05:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:There is a link to the page criticism of wikipedia under the second heading and it is one of the larger articles i have seen. [[User:Daftruth|Daftruth]] ([[User talk:Daftruth|talk]]) 05:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Hitch-Hikers Guide == |
== Hitch-Hikers Guide == |
||
Revision as of 05:32, 22 January 2011
The question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on itself has been raised many times before, and the answer is a definite "yes". |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Wikipedia 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 15, 2005. |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2010. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
Wikipedia Reference Desk was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Wikipedia. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The contents of the Wikipedia community page were merged into Wikipedia. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
To-do list for Wikipedia:
|
Index
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Countries
Licensing issues
My original question was what exactly it means when the article describes the GFDL as "not suitable for online reference works" which I changed to say it "was not considered suitable" and added a clarification tag to. On further inspection, this section also needs to use secondary sources rather than pages on Wikimedia's own projects. It's my understanding that there are issues with both using primary sources too much and referencing wiki pages that any person can change. Andreona (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Most viewed articles in 2010
Can anyone figure out what the most viewed articles in 2010 were? I don't think anyone cares about 2009 anymore. – Homestar-winner 03:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest
I feel that there should be some sort of a warning on this page regarding possible inaccuracies in this specific article; sort of a conflict of interest header template? --Matthew Bauer (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- What conflict of interest are you referring to?--71.85.198.96 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Page contains an error
Shame I can't put it right :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.47.162 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- What is the error? Perhaps if you tell us one of us can fix it. Or, you can create an account (free, does not involve giving any more information than a pseudonym and password, and does not require the completion of any surveys, etc.) and fix it yourself (after you have become autoconfirmed, of course). Intelligentsium 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 67.169.72.25, 15 January 2011
I feel there should be sections regarding general criticisms of Wikipedia, including the issues of difficulty of posting, the lack of user friendliness for editing, and the various concerns of people regarding whether this is good source, even though it has become the main source people use, and the privacy implications for people whose biography are shown as an article. 67.169.72.25 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's already an article at Criticism of Wikipedia which mentions all of those issues which is linked to from this page. Mhiji 15:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! and More, January 17, 2011
I was surprised that there was no section on criticisms in this page, when that is a pretty common feature among others. Generally, this page conveys a strong sense of bias, where every complaint or criticism is met by a rebuttal.
Let me tell you why I came to this page. I started with an objection about editing. I went to a page that purported to explain Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. It was impenetrable. There seemed to be no clear structure, just a piled-up accumulation of possibilities. So then I came here and, lo, this page is even worse. Are all these paragraphs of text really about Wikipedia, in something other than the general sense that the whole world is about Wikipedia? With all the overpolicing of individual articles that goes on in the name of quality control, one would expect to see some sort of editorial discipline here, of all places -- with, specifically, a criticisms section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raywood (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- You missed Criticism of Wikipedia? Rehevkor ✉ 12:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Criticism and/or Controversy Section
There is no criticism or controversy section on Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be biased even to itself. I have probably am not the only one to make this complaint. 216.105.64.140 (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is a link to the page criticism of wikipedia under the second heading and it is one of the larger articles i have seen. Daftruth (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hitch-Hikers Guide
I believe that it is time for it to be noted the Wikipedia is basically the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.49.80 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- That many articles already? But based on what sources? Rehevkor ✉ 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- GA-Class Wikipedia articles
- Top-importance Wikipedia articles
- WikiProject Wikipedia articles
- GA-Class Websites articles
- Top-importance Websites articles
- GA-Class Websites articles of Top-importance
- GA-Class Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- GA-Class Internet culture articles
- High-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Wikipedia good articles
- Engineering and technology good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Selected anniversaries (January 2005)
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Talk pages cleaned up by the Talk Page Cleanup Crew