Talk:Wikipedia

STATES

A book from the Middle Ages that had many illuminations and was used to teach

A book from the Middle Ages that had many illuminations and was used to teach

• illustration
• missal
• script
• mastery

A question on how Wikipedia can really have an article on itself without bias.

Is it honestly possible for this article to be without bias. Many editors love Wikipedia and wouldn't that make any user who edits this page someone who has a conflict of interest? Just throwing it out there. Hghyux (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has interests. But it's only when the aims of the editors and the aims of Wikipedia aren't aligned that conflicts of interest are created. Wikipedia aims to be an unbiased encyclopedia. So it depends what you think the aims of the majority of contributors are. If the aims of the majority are to create an accurate, unbiased encyclopedia, then the article will be unbiased as well.Planetscared (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case of simply reporting facts about WP such as its organization, or simply stating what WP claims to be its dispute resolution procedures, or statistics about its operation such as how many articles it contains, WP may be the best source available for information about itself, and bias is unlikely, other than sins of omission. However, where assessment or judgment is involved, such as comments on ArbCom activity, there is the possibility of bias. So, in this case, the statement that Arbcom functions "not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors", some may disagree that this is espoused policy. (Personally, I'd call this remark accurate as to how things work in practice, whether or not WP claims explicitly that this is the function of ArbCom. Of course, the objective identification of "problematic editors" is another matter.) Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WP has a strong and well-oiled tradition of neutrality. This is a very exposed article. You'd expect bias to be reported here if it were suspected. Tony (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

However, isn't there the issue of the page being excessively detailed? If there is any bias in the article, it would likely be that too much focus is placed on too many aspects and not an issue of biased writing per se. 74.15.69.22 (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

See...Also links

This edit removing links to WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment is based upon the in-line comment "per WP:SEEALSO the see also section is for links to related articles", which seems to me inapplicable, inasmuch as the WP hierarchical structure and editing environment appear to me to be very much pertinent to the topic Wikipeida. The See also link in this comment suggests that "common sense" be applied to this section and that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic", which clearly is the case here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As the guideline says that section is for

A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. (emphasis added)

And neither of those links are to articles but to two essays. The common sense mentioned is that used to decide which articles to include. It does not mean the guideline should be ignored.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So, John, what is your take on the For...see link to WP:About at the top of the page? If I understand your interpretation, no Main page article can link to a Project page through See also. Is that your view? So perhaps a For...see link is preferable? Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, please stop trying to promote your essays.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

John, I find your comment unresponsive to the questions asked: (i) What is your take on the For...see link to WP:About at the top of the page? (ii) Is it your view that no Main space article can link to a Project page through See also links?

The guidance essay WP:Formal organization is not "my" essay. As you will find at the top of its Talk page, this article has gone through extensive assessment by many editors and modified accordingly. It is not "my" essay, but the result of collaboration and review. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not here to answer questions or explain policy to you. As for WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment they are almost all your work: no other editor has made a substantial contribution to either. That is not a criticism of it: many if not most essays are largely the work of one editor. But they are still essays, and so should not be added.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

John, although it's not your function to explain policy, it could be helpful. In particular, you pointed out:

A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. (emphasis added)

I took this to mean your interpretation was that "articles" (main space) as opposed to "project pages" were referred to. Perhaps I have misunderstood you? That is my question. It is about your interpretation of this policy. Brews ohare (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What is an article?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

For...see link to WP:Formal organization

It seems to me that a For...see link to WP:Formal organization analogous to the present WP:About link is appropriate and would be a service to readers interested in the organizational structure of WP, a topic quite pertinent to the subject of the article Wikipedia.

What is the general view of this matter? Please comment here. Brews ohare (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: Editor Blackburne has removed a For...see link to WP:Formal organization on the basis that this link was to a "personal" essay. According to WP:ESSAY there is no such essay category. The article is presently identified with a banner that makes clear it is not a policy or a guideline.

The implication of the wording "personal" essay, of course, is that WP:Formal organization somehow involves my own opinions, not necessarily widely shared. What WP:Formal organization is in fact, is an outline of WP documentation regarding the hierarchical structure of WP (its officers and their duties, terms of service, etc.). It contains no assessment, analysis or viewpoint upon these matters, but simply lays out the facts according to WP documentation.

It seems that a For...see link to WP:Formal organization is appropriate and helpful, such as: Brews ohare (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Some mainspace articles have hatnotes (e.g. For x, see y) that link to policy project pages (Verifiability -> WP:VERIFY, for example). But I've never seen one linking to an essay. I don't know if there's a policy on it, but it's my understanding that essays may reflect personal opinion - that is, they are allowed to, you don't have to have community consensus and scrutiny for whatever you say in them - and therefore they should not be linked from mainspace, even if you have made an effort to write them with NPOV. I often see editors linking them from talk pages to illustrate a point, however... as I'm about to do. :) WP:WES and WP:SA? ~ Kimelea (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I do understand that a link to personal opinion would be undesirable. The article WP:Formal organization in particular involves no opinion, nevermind a NPOV.

That raises an issue that appears difficult to resolve: how is WP:Formal organization to be classified? It is not an essay because it involves no opinion, assessment or viewpoint. It is just a statement of what WP documentation says about WP hierarchy, without embellishment or commentary. I'd say it is an Information page, but that description appears to require some rite of passage that is not spelled out anywhere that I can find. Have you any idea how to do this? Brews ohare (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, I'm much newer than you and had to research the topic of essays to check my facts before I posted my earlier reply. But it does seem to me that the deal is not the POV/non-POV issue, it's that something labelled 'essay' has simply not been vetted / reworded / scrutinised / torn to pieces and put back together by the whole community the way something labelled 'information page' has. Achieving that widespread consensus, not just for what you're saying but how you're saying it. (Please, Community - correct me if I'm wrong.) Maybe the Village pump might be able to give you some advice about how to get that consensus? Sorry not to be more help. ~ Kimelea (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kimelea: An appeal to the Village Pump has produced the suggestion that a discussion be opened on this reclassification. Perhaps you would undertake to comment there? Brews ohare (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment:

Nature of Wikipedia

That section seems too long. Maybe the vagueness of the section title contributed for the section to expand without clear direction. I think one solution is to start a section on content. I tentatively gave a name "appraisal of content". It will cover, at least, reliability, sexual content and quality of wiring. (I'm not sure about what to do with notability.) -- Taku (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I think we should make each section of wikipedia relevant to its own topic, rather than making such a detailed article.140.198.42.45 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, anon, but I don't really understand you. Are you saying this article is too detailed? What's wrong with that? -- Taku (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. I basically adopted that section and made it about the criticisms of wikipedia, and included a "bias" section for allegations (true or not) of various biases. I kept your three devisions, but re-named them: Quality of writing, Possible Bias, Accuracy and consistency, and Content controversies.

Let me know what you think.

CircularReason (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, having a section named "criticism" is a bad idea per Wikipedia:Criticism. It's simply dull to list all criticisms on wikipedia. Much more smart thing to have the analysis of the nature of criticisms: (so "apprisal" sounded good). Other than that, I don't have particularly strong opinions on section titles. Any edits that are intrroducing more structures into the article is a good one I think. -- Taku (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it is a cool page) --98.207.235.212 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

look at the date 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Criticisms

I need a little back-up here.

I changed a variety of things about the "Criticism" page. It was poorly worded, and disorganized.

Me and Tepeat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teapeat) may end up in an edit battle here, but I'm not going for anything shady.

He said, "Blogs are not considered reliable sources" so I took out the blogs, and added Journal articles.

If he takes it out again, I am worried about his motivation. CircularReason (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What was the reasoning behind breaking up the reliability section into accuracy and bias? The Reliability of Wikipedia article covers both topics, so it's odd to have them split out here. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question. The short answer is: they seem different. Take two statements. If one person said, "At the end of his life, Elvis was fat" and another said "By 1970, Elvis had become obese" these are both factually accurate, but the first one hints at a value judgment (Elvis is a failure, he lost it, he died a loser). If a third person said, "By 1970, Elvis was still fit and slender," that would be factually inaccurate (as well as possibly biased, but primarily inaccurate). Some mistakes are innocent. So I guess all bias is inaccurate, but not all inaccuracy is biased. Cheers, mate. CircularReason (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Main Purpose of Wikipedia

Yes users of the global web should party to the founding president of the global Wikipedia web as a privilege for users, yes there will always be vandals, however, there are some vandals actually testing the security of Wikipedia, because they are Wikipedia administrators, confirmed users, and journalists travelling and trying to test the security of their bots and honest users in order to find ways of strengthening security, thus, why in the weird world do we need Wikipedia? Use the usual reliable references they need to support the article for any report to transfer other newspapers, and the main idea is the site also helps for news documents and news records forgotten and needed to be analyzed, such as movies, festivities, weather disasters, latest scams, and more. It is by this right Wikipedia maybe allowed freely and cautiously to secure it's need in the far future. Auto-confirmed user from CVU.--74.34.89.122 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Missing Information

Wikipedia is missing a lot of information. When I discuss to add new information from the primary source on the talk page, the editors from groups say that it is original research even though it is straight from the source! Wikipedia is not a reliable source.AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)