Talk:Wikipedia

Pronunciation

In the midwest, a lot of us pronounce the first two syllables of Wikipedia WIkI whilst pronouncing wiki WIki. I don't know if this should replace the first pronunciation (with a slashed i) in this article, be a third accepted pronunciation, or if it is considered either incorrect or much too trivial to bother with. but its ok, yolo!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.6.138 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 September 2012

Edit request on 17 November 2012

Reference 56("Founder shares cautionary tale of libel in cyberspace By Brian J. Buchanan". Firstamendmentcenter.org. November 30, 2005. Retrieved July 13, 2010.) in section 1.3 Vandalism contains a dead link. I googled the article name and author and found that the article has been moved to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/founder-shares-cautionary-tale-of-libel-in-cyberspace. The current link should be removed and replaced. 69.116.218.170 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Resistance to commercial or political propaganda disguised as fact

I think that this article should contain a section detailing the manner in which Wikipedia deals with attempts by corporations, by political activists, or by governments to present advertising, ideology, or propaganda within Wikipedia's articles, in writing that is disguised as Neutral Point of View.

For example, would it be possible for a government to infiltrate Wikipedia's editors, learn the system, and then serve as an opening wedge for a take-over of Wikipedia's senior editorship by incremental means? The most likely goal of such an attempt would be to control Wikipedia's content on issues which the government regards as politically sensitive, to ensure that its own side was portrayed sympathetically and that the other side(s) were portrayed, perhaps incorrectly, as aggressors or as evil-doers or as people who are so unreasonable that they might be regarded as "crazy."

How do Wikipedia's senior editors know that there isn't, among themselves, already someone who intends to make such an attempt at taking over the Wikipedia project on behalf of a government (or a corporation, or a political activist group, etc.)?

Or, for that matter, how can anyone else be certain that this has not already been accomplished? How can readers be sure that the "Neutral Point of View" isn't an illusion that would be difficult to perceive without direct experience with the article's subject?

173.87.162.84 (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the huge number of editors, it's almost certain that some are paid political activists and/or paid government representatives. Wikipedia's strength comes from it's requirements for sourcing, and that aforementioned massive number of editors. Most of us aren't paid political activists and/or paid government representatives. And we're watching. We can't be sure, but it's a pretty good formula. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the large number of editors would make this difficult. Any single editor, or even a few hundred, would be lost amongst the others who are on here to provide a reliable resource. There are also policies in place to help limit the chances that material is manipulated. For more info on this, see WP:NPOV. Especially relevant is the WP:UNDUE section. drewmunn (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the OP is talking about coverage in the article. The answer to this is to find reliable sources that talk about the issue. Formerip (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Payment plan

Shouldn't we put a payment plan on Wikipedia so there wouldn't be many more vandalism, edit warring, blocking, and I always see advertisements of Wikipedia asking for donations. It is just an idea that i just thought of and feel free to discuss how you feel of this? Think about it, if we have a payment plan in Wikipedia, there wouldn't be so many negative or nonconstructive informations in the page because only people who are willing to pay to edit, would put useful information in the page. Furthermore, the Wikipedia page would receive money for its needs.--(Slurpy121 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

Bur then it wouldn't be Free anymore.--Auric 10:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

...and you'd lose around 99% of the editors. Most people get into editing by seeing an error on a page, looking at the edit button, and going "eh, why not?" If you added a payment plan, then very few new editors would join. Those who did would most likely be paid for by companies, therefore leading to biased information. All in all, not a good plan. drewmunn (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but there are still some problems in Wikipedia, such as constant arguments and some administrators (no offense and not all) can be a little uptight, abrasive and unhelpful but like you said, it wouldn't be free anymore and might end up in a website of biased information. But i do agree that some modifications should be done though to improve the rules of the page and have a more orderly site. Then again, just tossing ideas around.--(Slurpy121 (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

Please keep in mind that, per Wikipedia's talk page guideline, this page is to be used only for discussing how to improve the article about Wikipedia. Discussions of how to improve the Wikipedia website are inappropriate here. Thank you. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

New Users "user page" link

In the New Users paragraph in this article, where it says "contributor is expected to build a user page", perhaps "user page" could be linked to Wikipedia:User pages --Burnishe (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

New Users and cultural rituals

In this article, perhaps the New User paragraph could include a link to Wikipedia:Tutorial, (or a Wikipedia New User Welcome page, if there is one). I think the suggestion of "cultural rituals" might be a little bit intimidating to new users if it's not obvious how to become informed about them. -- Burnishe (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This sort of suggestion would be more suited to the Wikipedia:About page, rather than the Wikipedia article. This article is meant to be an encyclopaedic entry about the encyclopaedia, rather than an introduction to it. drewmunn (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 December 2012

The following sentence has incorrect wording and doesn't make sense in its current form:

This means that, with the exception of particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages that are "protected" from some degree of editing,

and should be reworded to

This means that, with the exception of particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages that are "protected" to some degree from editing,

121.45.193.118 (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for noticing that! drewmunn (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 December 2012

The following punctuation error should be fixed, changing a comma to a full stop:

and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work,

to

and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work.

121.45.193.118 (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to join Wikipedia, and you can make these edits yourself! drewmunn (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

"When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, there may arise a systemic bias, such as non-opposite definitions for apparent antonyms. In 2011 Wales noted that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, which predominantly consists of young males with high education levels in the developed world (cf. above)[146] Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally, for example favouring certain ethnicities or majority religions.[185] It may more specifically follow the biases of Internet culture, inclining to being young, male, English speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases of its own may include over-emphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events."

Thanks.

MAJOR OMISSION: according to the cited source, 90% of wikipedia users are white males. So naturally, the sentence should read: "... which predominantly consists of young white males with high education levels in the developed world... inclining to being young, white, male, English speaking, educated..."