Talk:Wikipedia

Um comments?

 How do we put comments for answering questions? sorry, if im stupid but im new here.

Um comments?

How do we put comments for answering questions? sorry, if im stupid but im new here.chessmate92 (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understood what you meant. If on a talk page then you just post it along with the answer, with some explanation. Or do you mean Wikipedia:Peer Review?--Faizaguo 09:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What chesemate meant was how do you reply to a certain comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.24.234 (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Try prepending ":" to your text. ffm 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0

Why does "Wikipedia 1.0" forward here? There's nothing about Wikipedia 1.0 in the text and I'm wondering what it is. Dazjorz (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You can find out more about Wikipedia 1.0 (the published version of Wikipedia) by looking at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Self Serving?

I believe that Wikipedia is using their article about themselves is being used for their own purposes. To defend this point, I have made a list of proof.

1. They say that Wikipedia is the “most popular work of general reference on the internet”. Though Wikipedia is becoming increasingly popular, there is no practical way to measure this, and therefore, that statement is just an assumption.

2. They said that Wikipedia is attempting to “summarize all human knowledge”. First of all, there is no way to do that, and they are aware of that. Secondly, they never said that that was their goal any time before. In fact, another article said that they are not trying to do that. They would have said that to get people interested in their project.

3. Also, in the criticism section, they seldom say any names of the people who criticized them. Could this be used so that people would forget about the flaws and enjoy Wikipedia?

4. At the top of the talk page, they say that their article is a Technology and Engineering Good Article. You can figure that they would describe the article about themselves as good.

5. Finally, they stated in the discussion page that the answer to the question of whether or not there should be an article about them “is a definite yes”. They hat obviously said that so that the article wouldn’t be removed and people would still be able to read that article.

Fellow wikipedians, I do love Wikipedia and use it regularly, but it removes from the quality of the work to have such a self serving article. Perhaps Wikipedia could be more humble in these types of articles. --Ojay123 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, in response:

1. Wikipedia is the #7 most popular website in the internet, beaten by Yahoo, Google, Youtube, MSN, Hotmail and Myspace, none of which are general reference works.
2. This is what encyclopaedias do generally.
3. Many people have criticised wikipedia, naming them would not add any more validity to their points.
4. See WP:GAC for what a good article is. It has nothing to do with the subject.
5. What would be the point of having an encyclopaedia which has articles about the top 10 most popular websites, but omits #7, especially since #7 is possibly the largest encycopaedia ever created?

Wikipedia does not have "humble" only WP:NPOV. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not One Thin Dime For Wikipedia

It is not the least bit dismaying that WP has solicited donations for what could have been the greatest free speech, free information educational tool in the history of human kind, when in fact WP falls so short of the goal it is laughable. Such a plenitude of administrators, with absolute control, in military lock-step, ramming a single viewpoint down the throats of unsuspecting students across the planet must give each and every one of you a sense of real power ... the sort of power that Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and others couldn't even begin to dream of. Yes, there are a lot of crackpots out there. Frankly, I'm not one of them. But the degree to which WP tolerates tyrannical administrators who exercise a lethal stranglehold on certain articles is alarming. Alarming because it is legitimately dangerous to the world today. Remember: power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And all a(dministrator)nimals are equal, but some (administrators) are more equal than others.

Now I'll simply wait for this comment to be disappeared from the discussion page, as has been the practice so frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.55.154 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your talking as if you have met every administrator on wiki. I would say people like you, that are so quick to pass judgment, are more alike Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great. Instead of focusing on those that dispute your trivial ramblings find people that would agree to diversify, as if they're is no one that supports a multitude of ideas on wiki! People like you get flustered and take your anger out by trying to thrash wiki as a whole. All because your unsourced remark was removed. The next step is vandilizing random wiki articles because a few people disagreed with you. So who really is the problem? I find people like you slow down the progress of wiki, not the administrators. You sir are completely out of line. I hope this statement stays, to prove that Wiki is a place to freely share ideas as well as openly dispute comments and facts. Thanks for listening, 71.210.139.136 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.139.136 (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators fall into three categories. Admins who don't know there is a problem (thus who should be better informed). Admins who know there is a problem and ignore it or cover it up (thus who are in some form of denial). And admins who are the problem. Which category are you supporting?

• Please do not jump to irrational conclusions. Your edit wasn't removed by an administrator at all - just a talkpage bot that automatically archives old discussions. It failed to remove a template that enveloped a previously collapsed discussion, and thus the rest of the page was inadvertently rendered by it. It remains there. WilliamH (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an overall pattern of censorship, not just in regard to vandalism, but also general edits. You don't have to be a regular to see that.