|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2||Archive 3||Archive 4||Archive 5||→||Archive 10|
Will you include "Photography" , perhaps in Arts and Culture?
Looking at our work, Folks... for the very first time.
Keep in truckin, eh.
Where might you include photography? ...in Arts and Culture? ...in Multimedia? ...in Photo-journalism?
Keep on keepin' on.
-- Carey Conway Weston, Ontario
Some suggestions for this article from the village pump:
...How can Wikipedia protect itself from these clones? - Fernkes 01:30, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is free as in GFDL, meaning anyone has the right to fork. See Internet-Encyclopedia. -- Cyan 01:49, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Well you certainly set me straight with that Fork article. - Fernkes 02:19, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need an article that explains that the reason Wikipedia is free, and that we are happy with clones, people using our content, that sort of thing. This seems to pop up quite a lot from newbs (no offense, Fernkes), who don't understand the license. CGS 11:03, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC).
I don't think the comparison graph is a good idea. Articles released by commercial encyclopedias are written and vetted by experts and professional editors while ours are not. A great many of our articles are definite works in progress so it is not fair to compare that to commercial encyclopedias. If the image does stay it at least should be next to a section that addresses our growth rate and explains our deficiencies. All we need is for somebody in the press to see such a graph without proper explanatory text and then for them to discover many of our near worthless stubs. --mav 22:15, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- To be fair, not all "real" encyclopedia articles are brilliant prose. Especially Encarta has plenty of stubby articles.—Eloquence
- Nonetheless, Encarta's truth-stretching in including stubs in its own article count should not necessarily extend to us. :-) How about retaining the chart's current position (useful because it causes the reader to think immediately: "How astonishing!"; i.e. it is effective propaganda) but placing beneath it a caption reading something like: Wikipedia's size is an estimate. Chris Roy 05:03, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia really a "free content" encyclopedia?
Should we really be calling Wikipedia a "free content" encylopedia, as only the text (not the images) is "free?" Anthony DiPierro 23:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The images are a problem with the GFDL. But many of the images are licensed under the GFDL, particularly those made by wikipedians (eg. photos). --snoyes 00:05, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Right, but until all the images are licensed under a free content license, it is inaccurate to say that Wikipedia is a "free content" encylopedia. To call it a "free encyclopedia" is OK, as this can be interpreted as "freely available." But to call it "free content" is inappropriate. I'd recommend reverting "free content encyclopedia" to "free encylopedia," though I felt it should be discussed here rather than me unilaterally reverting someone else's edit. --Anthony DiPierro 00:21, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Leaving VfD header in, I stopped reverting under 3 edit rule, which tFoTT doesn't seem to respect. Pakaran 22:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, some users do not believe that anyone but they have the right to an opinion on what should or not be deleted, so people visiting this page will not know that it is listed for deletion, despite what the VfD page says about this matter. Since there is a determined cabal committed to stifling debate, and, where possible, removing any evidence of it, and entering an edit war is futile and counter productive, it is unlikely that this will change. Shame. The Fellowship of the Troll 01:41, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I put in a new link to Ibn Rustah the Arab geographer. Which seemed relevant and because I happened to be able to supply a link page for him. sunja 11:30, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In the "Antecedents" section, there is this piece of info: "Notable works include Fakhr al-Din Razi's encyclopedia of science..." I checked Fakhr al-Din Razi in Arab books, and it seems that he was a writer of philosophy and religion. I guess the name that should be instead of Fakhr an-din Razi is Abu Bakr al-Razi, who is according to the wikipedia entery (and to facts) had been into science, and was the created of the first Medical Encyclopedia. I am about 90% sure that the name that should be mentioned in the Wikipedia page is Abu Bakr al-Razi, not Fakhr al-Din Razi. I won't change it unless the person who put that piece of info confirm. -- Isam 18:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Excited about Wikipedia but will it last?
I am very excited about Wikipedia particularly because it is free and contains information I am interested in. But so did another site, Yesterdayland.com, and then one day the person who ran it got sick of running it for free and now it is gone. From my studies I no that had it been a legal corporation it would not dissolve so easily. What reason do we have to think that Wikipedia will not dissolve one day. That would be a huge disapointment. Wikipedia is much more popular I assume, though Yesterdayland gets 200,000 hits a day, and is also stabilized by active participants in its construction who have a vested interest in its continuance, whereas Yesterdayland was by and large used by passive browsers. It seems, in light of this, that there would ostensably be mechanisms in plave to ensure the longevity of Wikipedia. I am hoping someone could give a brief exposition on the matter, a move that would appease my anxiety from the post tramtic stress of losing my childhood (site). thanks Mike Feb 16, 2004
hi really nice website^^
This is a great website with lots of information, but I can'y do my bibliography will u please include the copyright date?
- Looking at the page history will tell you the date a page was last edited if that is the date you need. Angela. 17:23, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
The first paragraph needs some serious work; in particular, what does that bit about "supporting almanac- and gazetteer-like information" mean? I fixed the grammatical error, but it still doesn't make much sense. Jpatokal 15:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)