Jump to content

Talk:Wikipedia community

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2602:306:3878:81e0:a0a2:1efe:e57c:dd88 (talk) at 17:23, 21 February 2013 (→request about the page football records in spain : Someone needs to stop this circus !: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWikipedia C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganizations C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

Narcissus?

My comment is by way of a general sense of this article which I am left feeling does not really consider users to be members of the "community". The inference seems to me to be that they are considered to be spectators, onlookers into the wiki "project". But is wiki a project for its editors or a resource for its readers?

There seems to me to be a highly vocal group who believe that wiki exists as a project for their editing aspirations. I imagine though that in terms of the number of hits and time spent viewing its pages its use is overwhelmingly from those who see wiki as an information resource (and one in a great part of extremely high quality). Users give wiki legitimacy by reading it and the former are validated by creating it. These are two halves of the same coin yet it seems to me that discussions, in this article and in general, focus more on the rights and aspirations of editors than on those of users. This is what I mean by the label Narcissus. It is the cult of the writer.

Users are in the main are silent, but edits, redirects, and all those matters that the "community" considers and manages, should also in my view consider their needs in terms of an information and education resource that they increasingly rely upon.

If someone came to your house uninvited and removed or rearranged what was there, your pleasure or displeasure in this would directly relate to the respect they showed to your use of those things and the authority the claimed and enforced in doing so. Similarly, the benefits that administrators bring to wiki and the need for wiki's political organisation to focus on users should at least be balanced in the article, and I believe in general, against the perceived disbenefits of control to the free-reign of editors. LookingGlass (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:L Sanger.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:L Sanger.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Any reason why not to have this at Wikipedia community? It seems to have been at that title for a long time before taking the current name as part of a history merge; I'm tempted to think that the admin accidentally didn't move it back to the pre-merge title. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't an accident. The admin did not want to use the title "Wikipedia community". You can see the discussion here. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neckbeards

Can someone please redirect the search 'neckbeard' to this page? That is all.213.243.180.205 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality

Hi. As I skimmed this article today (at this revision), I was unimpressed with the quality of this article. Certain sections are fine, but others are unreferenced or simply wrong. I did a bit of cleanup, but this article needs some serious work, if anyone has time or inclination. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and lead

An enormous amaount of content (about 75%) was removed from this article in July and August. The result is that the lead as it now stands bears no relation to the article that follows. It was not particularly well written anyway, being little more than a collection of quotes on random aspects of WP by writers who might or might not be notable—as well as being seven to ten years out of date. I am therefore removing all but the first sentence. The last sentence can be moved down to the following section. If somebody could write a lead that "defines the topic, establishes context, explains why the topic is notable, and summarizes the most important points" (per WP:LEAD) that would be worthwhile. Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-script: I have discovered that everything I removed is already at Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of the community, so it has not been lost. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Wikipedia → Wikipedia community – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Community of Wikipedia" is not in common use. There was a HistMerge discussion in February 2011, which ended with the merge being done to Community of Wikipedia "since that is a better title", but without any discussion of that title. Scolaire (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedian ?

Are they any sources for the word "Wikipedian" for a user of Wikipedia? I don't think I've ever seen any that weren't from Wikipedia site... Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Wikipedian" may not be in widespread use in secondary, reliable sources, but there are such sources that use the word. Here is one example: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-24/lifestyle/35268862_1_virginia-earthquake-magnitude-earthquake-wikipedia -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

request about the page football records in spain : Someone needs to stop this circus !

Hello ..

may you please take a look at football records in spain ,this page is containing various different records in Spanish football, the user : 49.244.108.56 keeps removing some of them because he believes they are not needed and if you took a look at what he adds or removes you can see he is doing that biasing since he is working hard to remove Barca records allowing only real records !! the 3 records i added are well referenced from the related club website and even classified clearly under national records even not just a club records !! so anything clearer than that even ?? how should someone opinion or even bunch of people opinion about it make a difference in that ?? its a clear case...the related club classified it as record , so if someone likes it or not it shouldn't stop being a record .

and since its referenced I can't see any reason to remove it .

the website : http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/the-honours/detail/card/fc-barcelona-team-records

what is really weird...there is some records similar to those added ( like i added ) but he added them related to Real Madrid so obviously he doesn't have a clear measure in that.\

I tried sending other for help also but i found no response so far, I just think the whole thing is turning into a circus as that :) and for the protection of integrity of wikipedia someone should act in someway !! making it clear (neither way i dont care ) just don't leave it for somenoe to decide oh i hate this club so i dont want his records and im making my hard to remove them and bringing everyother possible records for the club i like ??! take a look at it please because this IP : 49.244.108.56 has long history of doing that !

he is the same range of ip from 49.244.125.32 also he is the same as 49.244.161.201 and by the way it's all belongs to a user has been blocked before but i dont know why they unblocked him again ! it's just as a circus as that

thank you

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_community&oldid=539465710"