Jump to content

Talk:Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.136.92.148 (talk) at 02:35, 20 July 2008 (→‎A Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleWikipedia 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.
Good articleWikipedia 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.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 1, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
September 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 25, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
should Wikipedia have an article on itself

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.182.198 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Isn't it odd that an effort hasn't been made to bring this page to featured article status?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancron (talk • contribs)

It has- this article has been nominated several times, and even was a featured article for a little while. However, the current belief is that it does not meet our standards for a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's full of grammatical mistakes too. Probably not ready to be featured.

Formation of the Wiki Community

Hi, I'm trying to find out what led to the Wikipedia community's success in attracting admins? How did people get started as administrators, and what incentives are there for editors to become more involved? Any help would be much appreciated, --Tishadejmanee (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&oldid=226737021"