Wikipedia talk:About

Archives: Archive 1

I didn't see an [edit] button on the page so I'm posting here...

The paragraph at the start that ends with...

Wikipedia has rapidly grown into one of the largest reference web site on the Internet.

Should say 'web sites' not 'web site' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.217.234.185 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Appears to be fixed. This page has been protected to prevent vandalism; you can edit it if you create an account and edit other pages for a few days so that your account is 'confirmed' – Qxz 15:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Just wondering, how do they catch vandalism? Does someone just have to happen to be on that page and see it? --Georgethedecider 05:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Vandalism #How to spot vandalism. Basically through recent changes patrol and by using the watchlist. I have occasionally found vandalism while just browsing though. Graham87 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this claim verifiable?

I was intrigued by the claim in this article that studies have shown that wikipedia is broadly as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. However, I couldn't find any mention of this assertion in the article that is cited as the source of this claim. Does anyone know why?

198.103.104.12 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Leslie[reply]

This isn't an article, just an "about" page for the website, so it's not subject to the policy of requiring a source for all factual claims. We do, however, have an article about Wikipedia, located simply at Wikipedia, which cites studies that have been conducted on Wikipedia's reliability – Qxz 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The study in question was done by Nature. ffm ✎talk 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Wikipedia

How about a section on how to correctly reference wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.7.248.137 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reliable

I know that anyone who wants to can edit Wikipedia. How tight is the security for making sure all info coming in is reliable? Is there a system making sure all of Wikipedia's facts are true? Is everything really checked to make sure it's good? 68.10.115.77 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Student[reply]

All the checking is done by us normal users. If you really wanted to (don't, by the way, :P) you could pick any random page (try the Random article button on the left sidebar) and add any old crap. It could stay there for weeks. But the chances are, that pages will be in someone's watchlist, or another person will be patrolling Recent Changes (see the Recent Changes list here) - they'll see your edit, identify it as vandalism and revert it. If you need any more help, or information for a research project, post a new message on my talk page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 09:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have found stems from those who "watch" pages. A personal experience has proven that even though these self proclaimed "watchdogs" look to revert "any old crap," they use their biases, not Wikipedia rules to do so. When challenged, they seek out other "watchdogs" in their cliquish circle of friends to affirm their biases, ignoring Wikipedia rules entirely. This is a real issue of credibility that I believe makes Wikipedia an unreliable resource. DaVoice 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

science

What qualifcations are needed to work at cadburys, bmw, a school and alton towers? please write back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.14.15 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're probably better off asking at the Reference desk, or asking the companies themselves - ask your school headmaster, send an email to Cadbury's (contact details for Cadbury's career advisors here), contact BMW by email or letter, and maybe look round Alton Towers' website. I'd guess that (from least qualifications needed to most) the order would be: Alton Towers, BMW, Cadbury's, a school - although what job you would do in that company would make a big difference. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]