Talk:Wikipedia

Template:PastACID

Template:FAOL

"Meta"

Thumperward, your description of certain parts of the article as "meta-advertising" puzzles me. You removed from the introduction a simple sentence outlining Wikipedia's core content policies, which is entirely relevant to the subject of the article, and fits with the guidelines that state that the lead section should summarize the rest of the article. The references to the project pages are there simply to confirm their existence — our policies don't allow unsourced statements in articles, and especially in an article such as this one we should be particularly careful to source every statement. Stating that "Wikipedia has a policy on such-and-such" is all very well, but while we as contributors know it's true, the reader may not. Proof that this is in fact the case, and that we haven't just made it up, is therefore required — just as it would be if we were discussing, say, company policy in an article about a corporation. We can't let the fact that we are Wikipedia detract from the need to source statements – Qxz 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to endlessly point out random Wikipedia policy pages in the introduction in order to make this point. The intro is overly-long as it is, and Wikipedia's internal policies need only be referred to with a single ref: not padded out with a half-dozen policy links. Even the article body goes into such excruciating detail over this that it reads like a site map at points.

As for the "information may be retrieved by..." section, such banal commentary doesn't belong in the article at all. I mean, wow, a website can be searched by visiting a search engine. Categories bear a note in the organisation section in the article body, but not in the intro.

I'm planning on removing these again, as part of a larger mission to reduce this article to a length which makes it readable. There's no rule which says that just because this is the article about the project that it need project more importance on Wikipedia relative to any other article. It should be presented with a NPOV as if it was just some random website, which means removing the buffing which comes from dozens of reference links to the same domain. Chris Cunningham 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the statement that says "Information can be found on Wikipedia by using search engines, article hyperlinks, or Wikipedia's topical organization of categories and portals"? This may be obvious to us, as regular users of both Wikipedia and the Internet, but remember that our articles should cater for a much wider audience. We all know what a search engine is, yet Search engine has to explain it in full.

I'm opposed to lowest-common-denominator editing. Chemistry articles assume some level of knowledge from the reader. So should website articles. Chris Cunningham 11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

78 kilobytes is a little lengthy, but it's by no means excessive, and we shouldn't be removing useful content purely for that reason. Remember that much of that 78Kb figure comes from the references, and the actual amount of text to be read is significantly smaller. This doesn't mean we should be getting rid of references, though.

The value in a large number of references to interlinked pages on the same domain is questionable. Regardless, my primary point is that such information doesn't belong in the intro. Wikipedia's governance model is not so interesting that the user is going to need to consult multiple sources over the subject of three lines in the intro. Chris Cunningham 11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content policies are important because they define the whole nature of the project, and are also both the percieved solution to and the subject of most of the criticism of the project, of which there is a lot. They deserve a mention for this reason, and as I said above, such a mention requires sourcing – Qxz 11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the size of the lead section, WP:LEAD suggests anything from one paragraph for a short article to four paragraphs for a long article. This is a long article, and there are four paragraphs; I don't see the problem with that – Qxz 11:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is self-reinforcing. The article is so long because of inclusionistic editing. This has to be tackled in chunks. However, if you don't think this article is overly-long and therefore tedious to read at the moment, there's obviously little that I can do to it. I don't think the article is a particularly good model for Wikipedia articles right now, primarily because its perceived importance has made people think that duplicating large portions of the site's meta-commentary is necessary to present a complete picture. I'd like to see the article presented more neutrally, and cutting the length down would improve the article's flow and readability. Chris Cunningham 11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is it's better than it was — I've trimmed down the "Criticism and controversy" section by over 10 Kb. The "Encyclopedic characteristics" section has since been introduced, thus bringing the size back up, but I think that's OK because it contains useful information that was lacking before. It could still use a trim and a check for biased material, though – Qxz 12:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you think this page is too long and full of meta-commentary you should try looking through the four sub-articles (listed in the to-do list); they're a lot worse — but we can only do so much at one time, and it's probably better to get the main article into shape first and then work on those – Qxz 12:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 110%

Jack Manion 74.167.217.43 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

With who? ffm ✎talk 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

2001

I don't agree with this because I remember being directed to this site through CNN NEWS yassa smell like khara around May 2003 but nothing was hardly here, then I cam eback in 2005 and voila, it was heavily populated

You don't agree with what? That the site was set up in 2001? It was, trust me (or see the sources if you don't trust me) – Qxz 19:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Table of Contents

The TOChidden template makes it so there is a "Contents" box inside a "Table of Contents" box. I know this doesn't matter that much, but it seems a little superfluous to me. Is there any way in which this could be changed? --Allispaul 06:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia community

I'm not sure if this article has anything that isn't already in this one. It survived AfD on no-consensus, but it's an extremely weak article. Should we just redirect? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC) :I'd say no. The article is a stub. Stating an article is weak is not a reason to redirect against the recent AFD decision and just put a redirect. A redirect is not the same as merging into this artice. I will remove the merge tag, because the subject matter is quite notable. The Wikipedia community is notable and has gained recognition. The community is what has made Wikipedia grow and what it is today. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

After careful consideration, I believe the info is redundant and should be nominated to redirect/merge. Or it could be nominated for deletion because it is not really notable. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I do know how to start an AFD. I recommend it be nominated for deletion based on the fact it is redundant, it is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and it reads like a promotional advertizement. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. Wikipedia community is a valid standalone subject. Wikipedia community provably exists and info about it is verifiable. If there is an overlap with "Wikipedia" article, there is a long-standing Wikipedia style of editing to split specialized articles from larger ones, rather than to make large pages into huge ones by merging. `'mikka 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is overlap already, it is clear there is no need for an extra article. Redundancy does not better an encyclopedia. Not much worth merging for a subject matter that is covered at the Wikipedia article and in the community article. A small paragraph covers the whole topic. We don't need to repeat it twice in separate articles. I recommend to AFD it. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid the words like "it is clear". It is your opinion. And funny in some places, such as hinting at the overlap with the community article. Why not with edit and consensus, group and people? The topic is separate. We have much smaller and much worse referenced articles on far inferior topics. On the other hand, after more careful reading both the article and the supplied sources, I see that the text is really weak. I will to something next week. If I fail to improve it, I will no longer object to merge. `'mikka 07:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the merge (for the reasons given in the AfD and by Night Gyr above). The subject matter doesn't merit a separate article, and is inherently OR and navel-gazing at best – Qxz 10:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it doesn't really matter, either way is fine with me. It kind of makes sense to merge them, but... I think maybe they should be merged, after all, they are on the same topic. Fuzzy 16:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with merging it (it's already been discussed on the talk page) is that it's just about too big to merge already, and in the wake of Essjay and the fact WP is cited more and more often in the news (almost weekly now) the amount of material written about editors is just going to grow... if it got merged today, for example, and if I were to follow all the RS that came out, I'd easily myself have enough content myself to have to split it righ back off in another month or so per the actual policies on forking. this was the closing admin's comments on the Afd. Numbers 2-4 are most important:

1. WP:ASR is a logically fallacious argument in this case. We are not making self-references here in anyway. See the examples provided on the guideline page, and you will understand what I mean.
2. Secondly, there isn't a little coverage on the topic, there is a lot of it, over the internet. Some of the sources have already been provided on the article. There are multiple, reliable and secondary sources available on the subject, we aren't merely quoting ourselves or providing primary references from Wikipedia or a mirror.
3. Thirdly, article has the potential to develop and grow into more than a stub, redirection and merging would definitely restrict that.
4. The article on Essjay controversy was later kept because of some of the reasons stated above.

This article will easily be as bulletproof content wise as Essjay's article in short order, and is already there sourcing wise.

Wikipedia's community is really just explaining how Wikipedia works. If the Wikipedia article is too big to describe such a fundamental concept as our editors.. then we should move other things to a second page if we have to. Separating the article just doesn't make any sense to me.

The Wikipedia community can easily be defined by one's perspective and isn't something we can just tie down to some specifics. A separate article will likely encourage a false impression of what the community actually is. -- Ned Scott 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that its easily a notable topic. The fact it's hard to write won't stop us and shouldn't. Also, the AfD was against merger. - Denny 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Both those things have nothing to do with what I just said. It's a notable topic because it's so core to Wikipedia. It's our editors and the concept of how we make Wikipedia work. Second, I didn't say it was hard to write about the topic, I said that it was highly subjective and a separate article could encourage a false perspective on the over-all community by focusing on just one possible perspective. Also, the AfD was not against a merger.. there was a strong support for a merger, but no clear consensus one way or the other. -- Ned Scott 17:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree there was clear concensus for a merge, and note also that AfD was based on the version of the article from weeks ago. Its more sourced, and expanded now. I think a merger or unilateral move to so would be a death sentence for an article that is either at stand alone status now or will certainly be in days to weeks. I also assume good faith but feel that many of the people in that AfD simply were reacting in defense of Essjay and simply don't want an article... on the community, as our warts may be recorded there. Regardless, the subject is notable, and if merged here will end up forking right back out due to content length. Whats the point in merging then? If I trim the community article down to an easy fat two paragraphs, just with the unused sources section I could make another 1-2 paragraphs. Once I do that, I'll have 3-4 paragraphs on the Wikipedia community here on the Wikipedia article. Another month, I'll certainly have another 1-2 paragraphs, and will be required to fork right back. Whats the point of a redirect? It will not stop myself and others from building the content if that is the intention. The article will stand barring an AfD to delete in the end. - Denny 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a sourcing issue.. it's an organization issue. You keep trying to argue with me on things I'm not even talking about. You would disagree there was a clear consensus for a merge? well great, me too.. I had just finished telling you that... Your assumptions about my motivations and logic are wrong.

Just because you can write 3 or 4 paragraphs on the topic doesn't mean they will have any quality to them at all. Like I said, what our community is or isn't is highly subjective. Lets say you are able to write 4 paragraphs of quality content.. that's still content that should be in this article. We're talking about how Wikipedia works.... And although people can get a general impression from the "community" you can't really label or generalize the community. There are so many sub-clicks and groupings of people in Wikipedia, with their own approaches and attitudes and viewpoints.. there's not a lot you can say that would be accurate for the greater body of Wikipedians. -- Ned Scott 17:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets let it stand as-is for a week. Based on that if the community... supports the merge, I'll happily do it myself, and just expand out that new section here as it develops. We can take up forking later then, based on the forking policies... - Denny 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Section "Reliability and bias"

Wikipedia appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed publications rather than the personal authority of experts.

IMO this statement is false as it stands. Wikipedia can rely on personal authority of experts within their recognized area of expertize, as well as on the authority of government officials (i.e., experts in government), see WP:RS#Exceptions. The idea probably was ".. rather than on the personal authority of experts contribution ot wikipedia". In any case, what is "the authority of peer-reviewed" other than the sum of the personal authorities of peers? `'mikka 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A drawback of this citation-only approach is that readers may be unable to judge the credibility of a cited source

An opinion, not a fact. requires reference. What is more, this statement is dubious: a drawback in comparison to what? Do readers "judge" the credibility of EB authors? They simply accustomed to believe in credibility of EB. In fact, in certain areas EB is biased as hell. The most recent example that came to my attention is whitewashing their compatriot John Mills (In frief, EB says that Mills "withdrew from the project" of Encyclopédie, while independent historians say he was kicked out and even banged on his head for his bad job) Secondly, we have WP:RS in place to ensure that verifiably credible sources are cited. `'mikka 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

fun with wiki

It might be a good idea to add a section that tells you all the fun stuff they can do with Wikipedia. I like to ask people a random or hard to find subject then see if I can find it only using links from either the home page or a random article. Or maybe it's just me that likes to waste time on Wikipedia? Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stupidninja (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Rejoice, you are not alone! See Wikipedia:Wikifun. `'mikka 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Such a section is not appropriate in an encyclopedic article. However, that does not preclude us from maintaning project pages containing such content; in addition to the page Mikka pointed out we have such pages as Wikipedia:Unusual articles. As for your idea of trying to get from one article to another using only links, that's been around for a while; there's a page about exactly that at Wikipedia:Wikirace – Qxz 11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Audio pronunciation file broken

Just thought I'd point out that Image:En-us-Wikipedia.ogg appears to be broken. This is the .ogg file linked at the top of the article as a pronunciation guide for the word "wikipedia". Either the fie is corruped somehow or the recording was made incorrectly from the start, but upon download it says something more like "P-Di". Witty lama 11:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd. It works fine for me; I hear all five syllables. Try re-downloading it, ensure codecs are installed properly etc., and try again – Qxz 11:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats in a name

yoyo.

Search Engine

The wikipedia search box is not very reliable. If you are a letter or two off, it won't give show you the term you are looking for.

Criticism of Wikipedia

"and that Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as other online encyclopedias."

come on, who are people kidding? and "Several scholarly studies have concluded" ?? ...not quite... one compared Britannica to wikipedia, saying there were about the same number of inaccuracies, however said nothing of the degree of the inaccuracy; many independent sources reviewing several articles, noted many serious factual errors... vandalism maybe "short lived" that isnt to say what has been vandalised is in any way correct to start with... there seems to be, in this section, a move to say only vandalism is inaccurate, or at least to bundle error with vandalism, there is nothing of the ignorance authors of the currently "accepted" version... and there is also a flavour of "truth is what the consensus agrees it to be", apparently decrying people who actually Know Things as "elites", this seems me childish. to equate Wikipedia with Britannica, to say that everyday people can seriously provide the same sort of information, with the same accuracy, is nonsense. Where do editors get the info from anyway? professionals... Serious criticism needs to be summed up here... (and is this section a placed for balanced views, surely that wouldn't constitute "criticism")

Some statements by Fighting for Justice:

“Wikipedia isn't academic. It maybe trying to be, but it's got a long ways to go.” [2]

“Wikipedia is not a crime database. It does not have to be perfect.” and “Wikipedia doesn't claim it contains the truth.” [3]

That user is an enthusiastic supporter of Wikipedia, but he clearly has a low opinion of its contents. Is he right? And if so, does the existing article on Wikipedia adequately reflect this?196.2.56.5 04:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does claim to be an encyclopedia - which it isn't. By definition an encyclopedia is "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia is anything but comprehensive - let alone accurate, or reliable, or for that matter respectable. Personal experience has shown that Wikipedia is a group of individuals whose ego's are self-served by publishing whatever their opinions are at the moment; Wikipedia refers to it as "Other Crap". Wikipedia has rules, but if you are inside the main click you aren't required to follow them - just follow your opinions. Post what you will, revert what you want. Now, does anyone believe that leads to credibility? DaVoice 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Wikipedia is a young encyclopedia compared to its competitors - it is currently a work in progress; anyway, how are articles such as Hilary Putnam amuteurish? The first edition of the Britannica contains gross inaccuracies and fanciful speculations; for example, it states that excess use of tobacco could cause neurodegeneration, "drying up the brain to a little black lump consisting of mere membranes". It's getting better all the time. How is it not comprehensive? Wikipedia is the world's largest encyclopedia by number of articles. CloudNine 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine back to earth (just a little pun on your name - please don't be offended). Wikipedia is anything but comprehensive, the articles it has are based solely on the interests of those posting - lack of interest = no article. Furthermore, the articles that are published are only scrutinized for accuracy by a few - of whom the ones I've met aren't qualified to be posting let alone editing. You make the assertion that Wikipedia is the world's largest "encyclopedia" assuming that we agree that it qualifies as such, but it doesn't and I certainly don't agree with your definition or usage of the word encyclopedia. Just because one makes a statement doesn't make that statement true. Example, Fox News' motto, "Fair and Balanced" - I ask, in whose opinion? When you look at Wikipedia for what it is, you end up with a 1 billion plus pages of what Wikipedia calls "Other Crap". Now one can hardly classify that as an encyclopedia. Now that we've looked at Wikipedia for what it truly is, allow me to say that I believe the concept of Wikipedia is great. However, for it to be credible Wikipedia needs to ensure that all of its users follow the rules. After a founder and numerous arbitrators have agreed to advise me, only to disappear when they realize the issue involves abuse by a user/contributer who seemingly posts a lot, it doesn't give much credibility to their agenda. Wikipedia cannot be credible and certainly will never become an encyclopedia with that philosophy, those ethics. So, I hope you understand, simply because they "want to be," "call themselves," an encyclopedia does not make it so. There isn't an encyclopedia fairy out there sprinkling encyclopedia dust over the pages of Wikipedia magically turning Wikipedia into an encyclopedia. Furthermore, it is said that an expert is so because he/she is considered such by other experts. Unfortunately, if you apply that to Wikipedia there isn't anyone out there in the encyclopedia field affirming Wikipedia. Which leaves Wikipedia in that category of being 1 billion plus pages of "Other Crap".

Just Curious?

Will wikipedia stop for some reason when we make first contact with aliens?

---

Why would it? There'd be lots of new info to add at that point, and even if some of it wasn't originally human knowledge, it would become such once humans learned it. *Dan T.* 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

want t know

i want to know how wikipedia and other websites earn , i mean how are they earning , what's the procedure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.247.234.171 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Our beloved founder, Jimmy of Wales, Lord Over All That We AfD.

Wikipedia itself doesn't earn as such - the Wikimedia Foundation is a charity, so almost all of its income is from donations and fundraising. There are no adverts on the site, and we don't really sell anything, so there's no direct way of making profit, and profit isn't what the organization is about. Occasionally you'll see a fundraising drive happening here on the site, once Jimmy Wales realises we don't have enough cash for next year's budget. Other websites make money in many different ways, but most commonly through advertising, with programmes like Google AdSense. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for wikipedia not having any advertisements? Surely this would be a sensible solution against money issues. Also why is wikipedia not trying to prevail as a business. They already are well known, and with some drive can be turned into a big profit making company.

Because not everything is about money? I prefer Wikipedia as a free, open content encyclopedia with no advertisments whatsoever. CloudNine 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because:

1. Advertisments are annoying, rated as one of the most annoying things on the internet, and they degrade the (mostly) serious nature of the website. He says on April Fools' Day...

2. As I already said, Wikipedia is a charity. It does not want to make any profit, and doesn't need to. I'm sure Jimmy Wales has thought before about how rich he might become by turning it into a commercial venture, but one of the best things about Wikipedia is that's it's completely free, no strings attached, and run by volunteers. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

10th in Alexa rankings 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnote aside, today, 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC) is the first time I have seen Alexa place Wikipedia in the top ten world wide. --Ancheta Wis 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

I have sad this before on this talk page,considering just how popular wikipedia is (now top ten most visited websites[4]) I really think a little advertissement wouldn't hurt.I'm not saying the founders should become money hungry people, but being one of the top ten websites I'm sure would mean you would never need donations from anyone,and the big surplus they could atleast put towards improving the site with extra servers or whatever,but keeping some for themselves wouldn't hurt eitherRodrigue 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About

I think that having Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia is redundant, they are both virtualy the same with the exception that WP:ABOUT isn't really an article. They both however start virually the same and they both cover the exact same topic just with different titles. Feedback? Scottydude 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure everything goes right.

Ok, I guess WP:ABOUT is really more an intro for newcomers. I spoke to soon, unless of course you agree. Scottydude 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Shutdown?

Stumbled across this article [5] and was wondering if anyone had heard anything about it? Zchris87v 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)