Talk:Wikipedia

This is not the page to ask for help with using Wikipedia or other random questions.

Minor Numerical Update

Just wanted to note that the number of English articles stated in the opening lines is going to be inaccurate pretty soon, as the site is rapidly approaching 2.7 million English articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voendomar (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been updated. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I Live for Irony

Should there be a page devoted to the "wikipedia" page on wikipedia? because that seems like a wonderful idea to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.220.228 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea, but an individual Wikipedia page is pretty clearly non-notable unless there is a significant amount of information about that specific article in reliable, independent sources. I think this would only apply to cases such as the Seigenthaler incident article. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

2002 spike in contributions?

Where is there an explanation for the 2002 spike in contributions?--128.231.88.7 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an explanation for it in the article, but it's probably not significant enough in itself to mention. I assume you're referring to the 2002 spike in the daily number of articles created. It could have been just a result of some news coverage (which might have had a significant impact back then), an article creation bot (if there were any of those at the time), or some users creating a lot of articles. Maybe ask someone who was an editor back then? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Semiprotected.

{{editsemiprotected}} Indulge in Almonds (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Martin 00:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking sides

• Wikipedia does not take a side.

This is not true. In several major public controversies, Wikipedia sides with "science", i.e. the viewpoint of the scientific mainstream. I don't know why this is seen as consistent with NPOV, as it seems to me to be endorsing the mainstream POV.

How large a majority must there be in a scientific dispute before Wikipedians may declare that there is a scientific consensus? Or how large must a a minority be before it is allowed to be covered in full? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what controversies you're referring to. Anyway, since science is a combination of a method and an existing base of knowledge rather than a POV, using that knowledge is standard practice for encyclopedias; I don't see how that conflicts with NPOV, particularly since a scientific consensus doesn't necessarily match the most widely held views outside the scientific community. A scientific consensus may be declared in an article when it is considered such by independent, reliable sources (particularly ones that are specific to the field), so that issue would fall under verifiability instead of NPOV. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Science, when practiced well (i.e., honestly), has a good method for discovering truth. But what about when there are disputes over whether a particular bit of scientific work has been done honestly? What if other scientists report being unable to reproduce the results?

In other words, how are we contributors supposed to assess the independence and reliability of scientific sources? I refer in particular to the problems with the Anthropegenic Global Warming theory, held by the (journalistic) mainstream to be responsible for most of the past century's global warming. How are we as contributors to explain to readers whether essential things like establishing cause and effect have been done correctly?

One side says that over the last half million years, changes in carbon dioxide levels have caused changes in atmospheric temperature. Another side says just the opposite: that in fact, temperature changes preceded changes in carbon dioxide levels by several centuries. How do we decide which "peer reviewed" studies are reliable? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The example of global warming doesn't seem to be relevant here, since there's a definite scientific consensus in support of the AGW theory, and plenty of clearly reliable sources (IPCC, Royal Society, numerous peer-reviewed studies, etc.) demonstrating that consensus. I think the global warming (featured) article does quite a good job of presenting the consensus and the few dissenting views among scientists, and its perception by the general public is covered in other articles. That seems to be an example of Wikipedia working properly and not taking a side. Besides, the statement "Wikipedia does not take a side" is used in this article in the context of describing policy, not as a statement of what necessarily occurs in every case, so this discussion doesn't really have an impact on what the article on Wikipedia should say. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed's trying to drum up support to force content changes at various articles related to denialism he's has a history with, global warming, AIDS, science and ID. The history of this is covered in his RFAR.

This is slightly off-topic, but it is true that Wikipedia has often been accused of actually taking a side, no matter what its policies say. Conservapedia, for example, was founded because of perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia. Describing policies is a must, of course, but discussing the reality--or, more precisely, the reality that reliable sources depict, is also important, I think, and currently the article doesn't do this poorly. (It does discuss bias, but really not in depth: it has to include discussion on liberal bias, systemic bias and above-mentioned scientific bias.)

Little defence for wikipedia: The accusation , quoting consevapedia:

link conservapedia accusation of wikipedia for liberal bias

Wikipedia show a "systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own NPOV policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a scientist who holds a minority view. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "undue weight" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias."

It been know that wikipedia work to be a good encyclopedia with a strong neutrality. And so, some mechanism are actually use to reduce the lack of neutrality of some article.

The Neutral point of view is ask to be use in any topic, include controversial one. The point of view from scientist who holds a minority view should not be give an important place in the scientific topic. However, the minority point of view accusation seem to point to some pseudo-scientific, like creationism, with are view also in this encyclopedias.

However, the neutral point of view is limited to unbiased information and several review, include the Nova Southeastern University, Nottingham University and the Gould Library at Carleton College in Minnesota found a really few factual error in different set of articles and even comparing wikipedia to Britanica.

And so, conservapedia is accuse of a strong, conservative systematical bias by different web site: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Bias_in_Conservapedia_(May_2007) http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/03/conservapedia-hopes-to-fix-wikipedias-liberal-bias.ars http://kriswager.blogspot.com/2007/07/tired-of-conservapedias-liberal-bias.html http://hnn.us/articles/37366.html http://apcmag.com/wikipedia_vs_conservapedia.htm

Even worst, even uncyclopedia make a strong fun about the bias in conservapedia: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Examples_of_Bias_in_Conservapedia

Wikipedia might have some bias, it is not perfect and never will be. But the community work to give better article, and it's seem to do a good job be some study. Conservapedia, on the other hand, don't receive this advertisement of quality and should work hard if they want to have the same quality of wikipedia. It is also know that any wiki should not use as the only source for research. Triple and quadruple "check" is always a good idea for any research, even in primary school.

This defence was not neutral, and was not intended to be.

Therrydicule

error in link

The link in the note 86 is wrong. The (new) correct one is: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126883.900

--Biasco.ch (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The link you provided and the existing link go to the same page and both work fine, as far as I can tell. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, now it works. Maybe it was just a problem on their server. Thank you for checking. --Biasco.ch (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hidden Vandalism

Srs109 vandalized a word here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biasco.ch (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been reverted. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

HELLO

WIKIPEDIA SUCKS COCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuncieIndiana1 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)