Talk:Wikipedia

Criticisms of Wikipedia

Currently, the article lead has a short discussion on the criticisms levelled against wikipedia. I think this is the wrong place for it - it's unnecessary clutter in a very restricted space and I'd suggest it looks a bit defensive putting it right up there. So I think most of it should go in a new Criticisms section where it can be tidied and expanded a little, with just a short note left behind on policies. If nobody objects in the next day or so and I remember, I'll get on with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't. The reason there is no criticism section is Wikipedia:Criticism. -- Taku (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you mean Wikipedia:Criticisms (with an 's'). But no, I think I am on your side here? I am not advocating a big expansion of what is already in this article's lead. I think it needs giving less prominence, not more, by moving out of the lead and into the body of the article. Alternatively, it might be moved to the lead of Wikipedia:Criticisms, which could then be linked to from here. Or, are you saying that it really does need to stay this prominent? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did mean Criticism without "s". (It's confusing, I know.) I was referring to the section "Criticism" section. In nutshell, it says having a section named "Criticism" to collect various criticisms that have ever made is not a good idea; better to scatter them around the page. For example, "explicit content" covers any porn issues that have been raised on Wikipeida. I think this is a good advace and I think we should follow it. -- Taku (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As to the criticism prose in the lead, I do agree that it is little too detailed. (e.g., no need to cite Jimbo) Maybe we should trim it down since it's covered in the article already? -- Taku (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on about this, but your reply is confusing me. Wikipedia:Criticism (no 's') opens with, "This essay is about material that emphasizes negative criticism. For criticism of Wikipedia see Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Criticisms." How then does it relate to criticisms of Wikipedia? Is it not telling us that we mean Wikipedia:Criticisms (with an 's')?

And again, I do not advocate collecting anything (as you seem to think I am), just moving what has already been collected by someone else. What is wrong with moving it? Are you saying it should just be deleted wholesale? But might that look too much like ignoring criticism? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Taku. The Wikipedia:Criticism essay provides a recommendation for how to structure articles in general, including the article about Wikipedia itself. Applying that recommendation to the article would mean that we would not have a separate criticisms section. In addition, the article has no need for a separate criticisms section because all of the criticisms listed in the lead section are already found in the article:

* quality of writing (section 3.2)

* inaccurate, inconsistent or unverified information (section 3.1)

* explicit content (section 3.5)

* too much weight is given to some topics, bias (section 3.3)

* vandalism (section 1.3)

Why would we take information from these existing sections and duplicate it in a new section? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I get it. Thank you for that. So could the details just be deleted from the lead, then? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think it was a good idea to remove so much content from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, not just introduce it. There are now large parts of the article which are not summarized in the lead. I think that there certainly is room to improve the content which was deleted, but deleting it was not an improvement. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed Purging

This article is on its way to becoming an FA article. As such, unless it is critical to the article, I am going to start purging all information that has no cites. The ones that are critical will need to be addressed once I am done with the purge. But I am not going to do this now. I will start doing this in 72 hours from this post. That is 6:30 GMT-5, on Tuesday, August 1^st.Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 22:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia Sources

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ever-wonder-where-wikipedias-info-comes-from-here-are-its-top-5-sources/ — A most interesting and intriguing graphic, content, and extensive researched list. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph under the heading: Dispute Resolution.

The first paragraph under the heading "Dispute Resolution" could use a little bit of revision. In particular "... when a change is repeatedly done by one editor and then undone by another, an 'edit war' may be asserted to have begun by the editor who chooses to engage in that assertion" is beyond awkward. My natural inclination was to go for something like "... when a change is repeatedly done by one editor and then undone by another, an 'edit war' may be considered to have begun" but this is problematic because the assertion is referenced in the next sentence (which has it's own problems). I'm concerned that if I change too much I may mangle the intention because I'm not terribly familiar with the subject matter (most of my edits are minor). Perhaps someone with a bit more familiarity with the subject could take a crack at it. Olleicua (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia Article

Could we get someone fluent in both English and Italian to look at the Italian article on Wikipedia to see if it could improve this one? If you do find something, could you put it in your user space as a rough translation? Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Italic title

I think the word 'Wikipedia' should be italicized. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_face: "Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized." — John Biancato 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We can also argue that "Wikipedia" refers to more than just an encyclopedia. It's also a project, community, movement... -- Taku (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but most importantly it is an encyclopedia. From Wikipedia article: "Wikipedia is a free, collaboratively edited, and multilingual Internet encyclopedia supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation." From Wikipedia:About page: "Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable model". — John Biancato 16:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how about this argument: Wikipedia is an exception to the rule. I looked at the German version and French version and they also don't use italic title. Also, on the Internet, Wikipedia doesn't seem to be italicized. Maybe it's a reflection that people don't see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia :) In any case, it's usually better and simpler to stick to the convention. -- Taku (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly an exception to the MoS rule, both in reliable sources and within the project. We codify existing practice so the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic face should be updated to reflect the non-italic status of Wikipedia, Citizendium, Conservapedia, Nupedia, etc., after a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. 71.212.250.193 (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of exactly one external page where the word "Wikipedia" is italicized.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC) and 22:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Nupedia and Citizendium are not italicised either. Perhaps they should be too; but it seems that it is common to view Wikipedia primarily as a website, names of which are in most cases not italicised. Keφr (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia be an exception? Also, just because other Wikipedias or articles don't use italicised titles doesn't mean it is correct. Again, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_face. — John Biancato 20:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because using italics every time Wikipedia is mentioned in the text would be too distracting. And I think I agree with Taku's first explanation: Wikipedia is not just a fixed body of content, it is rather a group of communities surrounding multiple projects under the same banner (because the other language versions operate pretty independently from the English Wikipedia, aside from hosting and funding). Notice you used the word Wikipedia in plural - something you can't do with most titles. And you did not italicise the word yourself. </snark> I think it's rather the WP:MOS that needs to be clarified. Keφr (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Further comments should probably go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#'Wikipedia' is not in italics. 71.212.250.193 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Header Size

The header "Arbitration" under Nature>>Rules and laws>>English Wikipedia is one header size smaller than it should be, a very small fix. --Nitsuaeekcm (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. And welcome to Wikipedia! For your information, you could have made this request using {{editsemiprotected}}. Keφr (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Usage of Wikipedia in judicial opinions

Is there a fork that covers the usage of wikipedia as a reference in legal ruling?Smallman12q (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of such a fork but a Google search shows that Wikipedia has been used in courts. There is also a wikiproject dedicated to law that may be able to give a better answer. Hope that helps. meshach (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a small amount of information on this subject in the following section: Reliability of Wikipedia#Reliability as a source in other contexts. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been cited in a judicial opinion, just a few days ago, as noted here in an appellate case in which half the decision discusses Wikipedia and quite famously in federal court by Judge Richard Posner as well as over 400 times in various courts over the last decade. The article should include this quite notable information.99.102.212.191 (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)