Talk:Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
SailorSonic (talk | contribs) →How to add categories to an article?: new section |
|||
Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
[[User:Kobbra|Kobbra]] ([[User talk:Kobbra|talk]]) 09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
[[User:Kobbra|Kobbra]] ([[User talk:Kobbra|talk]]) 09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
== How to add categories to an article? == |
|||
This is probably the wrong place to put this, but who do you add categories to an article? I can't figure it out. [[User:SailorSonic|SailorSonic]] |
Revision as of 17:38, 8 September 2011
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 |
Template:Wikipedia talk notice
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
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:
|
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 |
Countries
Section Moves
The entire sections of Sexual Content and Plagiarism could be moved into Criticisms of Wikipedia, what do you think? Cbrittain10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC).
- Criticism of Wikipedia is currently a disambiguation page, not an article, so content cannot be moved there. Are you proposing that Criticism of Wikipedia be converted back into an article? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Automatic Bot archiving
this talk page is pretty active, may I set up automatic archiving of this page?
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(7d) | archive = User talk:Example/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s }}
Cbrittain10 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
remove pronounciation sound clip
I propose the removal of the pronunciation sound clip in the first sentence of the article, Wikipedia. You can barely hear "Wikipedia" being said. Just listen to it yourself here. Do you Support or Oppose? --QUICK EDITOR 22:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Unnecessary negative emphasis?
The lead section says "Its 19 million articles (over 3.7 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, but has only about 90,000 active contributors."
Apart from the grammatical problems with this sentence, does anyone else think that "but has only..." is unnecessarily negative? Isn't 90,000 quite a lot? Can't we reasonably say "Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, and it has about 90,000 active contributors." 86.160.84.219 (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. (I prefer simple expression where it tells the whole story anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would be good to make that more neutral. Do you or HiLo48 have a proposed wording? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- My proposed wording is above. Note also that the sentence is currently structurally flawed. The word "it" could be inserted before "has", but I suggest that it's better to start a new sentence at "Almost". 81.159.105.227 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed that. It looks good. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if everyone's agreed, could someone who has permission to edit the page possibly make that change? 86.160.82.204 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this article a COI?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Wikipedia having an article about itself a COI? Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Only individual editors can have a conflict of interest. Do you know of anyone who has a financial interest in Wikipedia who has been editing this article? — Satori Son 03:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Of course everyone editing the article will have at least a faint apparent COI - they are a volunteer with the subject of the article. So what? The same can be said of the articles for "Computers" (as all editors are using a computer or computer-like device to contribute), the "Internet" (as all editors presumably contribute via the internet), or even "Humans" (as all editors are, presumably, human). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Bias
Removing bias from the article entitled Wikipedia
There seems to be something of a bias in this article. Not enormously surprisingly, criticisms of Wikipedia seem to be down-played, and nothing negative is said without the flip-side stated ASAP. Yes, fair to a degree, but it is as though any criticism absolutely must be negated. The article reads to me as a retort to anyone who has something bad to say about Wikipedia and, let's face it, a little like propaganda. Gingermint (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I am a huge Wikipedia fan. Gingermint (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give any examples of what you consider to be biased in the article, it would make it a lot easier to address your concerns if we had a better idea about what aspects of the article you think need to be changed.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Any criticism should show both sides in order to be neutral. But yes, specific examples would be useful. Яehevkor ✉ 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Really? In honesty, I feel Wikipedia is being too hard on itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.27.116 (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Documenting accusations of bias about articles in general
Three examples came up by quickly Googling the subject (regarding bias on Wikipedia in general):
- In the article on George W. Bush on PBS;
- An issue that required the intervention of none other than Jimbo Wales himself on The Daily Telegraph, backed up by the relevant article talk page;
- Pro-terrorist organizations and generally anti-Israel on Haaretz.
I am certain that more WP:RS can be found that make similar accusations, doesn't that merit a small "accusations of bias" section? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- A new section should not be added to the Wikipedia article, because accusations of bias are already covered in the daughter article Reliability of Wikipedia. There's room for expanding Reliability of Wikipedia if the material is properly sourced. Note that, due to the structure of the article, the discussion of bias is split between the Assessments and Notable incidents sections. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- See, therein lies the problem: by omitting the section from the main article, the reader gets the wrongful perception that there is little to no controversy, as people normally read the main article to get acquired with the subject matter while mostly not even getting to Reliability of Wikipedia. As per WP:NPOV, we should create a section with
{{main}}
linking to the daughter article. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)- What about Wikipedia#Reliability? Яehevkor ✉ 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- See, therein lies the problem: by omitting the section from the main article, the reader gets the wrongful perception that there is little to no controversy, as people normally read the main article to get acquired with the subject matter while mostly not even getting to Reliability of Wikipedia. As per WP:NPOV, we should create a section with
The pie chart should be replaced
The pie chart is from 2008, which by internet standards is completely archaic, not to mention the millions of article that have been written in this time. Can somebody make a more relevant pie chart or find one that is more up to date.
Kobbra (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
How to add categories to an article?
This is probably the wrong place to put this, but who do you add categories to an article? I can't figure it out. SailorSonic
- 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
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Talk pages cleaned up by the Talk Page Cleanup Crew