Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 15



Does wikipedia really exist?

whats the point in writing an article on an online encyclopedia if it's writing about itself? so if i write about myself we can keep it? IThink4u 00:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm...what are you talking about?? Why is this the first topic here? and how are you posting on a nonexistant site? And how is it not deleted? no, leave
an artical to be generally unbiased.  Or, maybe it is just funny.  --  Dr. Zed 13:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists and is verifiable. --Optichan 17:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly verifiable, but it doesn't think. Therefore, original research can't verify it. That's probably why we can't use OR in articles. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It exists, but is it really noteworthy? =) 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You can write about yourself, you know, on your user page. You get it for joining, and you can do what you want on it. Mine's not great, but Omniwolf has a nice one, he's the only person's that I've looked at so far. Death Dark

Downward slide?

This might get flamed but here goes... Several years ago I stumbled upon Wikipedia while doing research for a book project. I briefly considered editing it but decided against as I was only a students and not an expert. Another year and I stumbled upon it again. This time, the articles were still small but it was growing. They were clean and well written. I quickly became addicted. I got an account several months ago and have done some (but very little editing). That was then I noticed something awry. "Messy article" templates popped up more often. There were more articles in larger sizes but were of poorer quality. Is this because others who are less concernend about the quality of Wikipedia have edited more? The site attracts more traffic than it ever has and spamming seems to be much worse of a problem now than three months ago. I have since resolved to pull my share and clean up as I much as I can but is WIkipedia collapsing under its own weight? Will we have to trade its open model for a closed one? I hope this never happens. Though this problem is very old and familiar to older Wikipedians, it is not going to get any better. Vendettanine 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)\

Wikipedia is collapsing under its own weight. There are too many users, too much public acess and too many dummies trying to run the site that don't have a clue what they're doing or where their diapers are. I have frequented this site as a registered user for many years, and although some expansions are nice, it is headed downwards. I DEMAND that major reform occure before Wikipedia illegitimzes itself as a true source of information in the eyes of the real world.-(Betty Yves 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

You're showing signs of being online waaaayyyy too long. Unplug for awhile. I've been here since the beginning and the sites only gets better.

I feel that Wikipedia is sometimes a little "US-centric". I rarely see an article where there is not a reference to the US, US english or North America as if the US is a comparison to the rest of the world. Just like the US dollar is the basis for worldwide currency. I do however find Wikipedia to be an amazing resource. - nickuss 12:04am, 8 May 2006 AEST

To betty: and you suggest what? Stopping new users from entering? manually blocking each "bad" user? all the people who log on should make sure Wiki is self correcting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Wiki storage site?

I have a question about the Wiki storage site. The question is, um, where is it? I know there is a site where information and references can be stored. Can someone tell me where that site is? Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 07:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I decided it'd be fun to answer this question via a little detective work, so I dug out the usual tools (dig, traceroute, etc) and found the answer is a little more complicated than I imagine you hoped for.
I traceroute'd to and found I was directed to ( located (apparently) in Tampa, Florida.
According to whois (command: whois
The registrant and admin contacts are in St. Petersburg, Florida
The tech contact is in Apple Valley, California
According to whois (command: whois
The registrant is in St. Petersburg, Florida,
The admin contact is in Sacramento, California, and
The tech contact is in Boca Raton, Florida
This information is just for the English Wikipedia. I haven't investigated other locations, nor is that really
within the scope of my interest at the moment.
Also of interest may be Wikipedia#Software and hardware, of note:
By September 2005, its server cluster had grown to around 100 servers in four locations around the world. (from article text)
...of course, Wikipedia itself is all over the place, since its contributors are scattered to all four corners of the Earth.
Hope that helps! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think you misunderstood me. There is a website where you can copy and paste and store documents that are then used as supporting evidence for Wikipedia articles on the main site. Does anyone know where that website is? Thanks. Andrew Parodi 07:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I must concur. I found the site a tremendous asset in recent years, but have found that a combination of misinformation and pop culture clouding the academic integrity of the site. For example, I find it difficult to believe that scholarly publications and institutions of higher education established for well over a century receive no more than a broken link, but video game soundtracks, adult entertainment actresses and a list of movies in which people die in a blender are among the integral entries on the site. (Anonymous, Philadelphia, Pa.)

Original Research

Ok so my question is this. If wikipedia does not allow original research, and everything has to be cited, shouldn't that eliminate any potential errors in the creation of these articles? I don't understand; if every original research-based entry is deleted or handled accordingly, we shouldn't have any problems.

On the flip side, as I play devil's advocate, why is original research abhorred so much? If, for instance, I see Metallica in a concert perform a song they have not performed live previously, there's an off chance that that won't be reported in the next days news, or in any published source online. Therefore, the only way that it could be put on Wikipedia would be if someone at the concert put it on there, but I would imagine that that would count as original research. I'm just kinda fuzzy on how the whole process works; if anyone could shed some light on my dim situation, it would be appreciated.

To add to this, let me further demonstrate my point with another example. Maybe an exception could be made or more leniency could be granted for topics that people have more local knowledge of. For example, sources should be cited for ANY article about, i.e., Jesus, becuase no one could go on there and say, "Jesus' favorite food is quesadillas becuase Jesus lived thousands of years ago, way before Wikipedia was around. On the flip side, for an article involving something like Northeastern Pennsylvania dialects, uncited sources should be a little more lax because more people can go on there and put information they know firsthand. 05:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

-You're right. Its a dumb rule. Anyone could make a site and cite themselves anyway.

If you want to do a review of a concert you could do it on h2g2. If it's well-written and you nurse it through Peer Review it could even get into the Edited Guide. TRiG. 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editing of Wikipedia

I should to have a positive view of Wikipedia, until I decided to create a account and collaborate with me. Now that I have some pages in my watchlist I notice that about 90% of vandalism/spam/npov and other destructive edits are made by anonymous users, while 90% of corrections and other constructive edits are made by registered users. This is inneficient and annoying. I'm really tired of it, so unless Wikipedia changes its policy and requires an account to allow edition, I will not contribute to Wikipedia anymore. Ronasi 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, say Wikipedia decides to only allow members to contribute. Sure, the vandalism goes down, but so does the number of contribs. Also, allowing only members will make it so the member-registration rate goes down, because most contributors begin as anons. -acfan-Talk to me 18:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Most contributors begin as anons because they can. If they were required a free registration they would begin to contribute as members. If someone doesn't want to spend a little time to register in order to contribute, then probably his contribution isn't worth. Ronasi 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
On the last point: That's not really true, is it? And contradicts what you've just said.

I believe that anyone should be able to edit wikipedias archives. I found a incorrect article about guyana and i took the liberty of correcting it. The think is that before i desided to post this comment. I read that they are now saving my IP adress. If you dont want things like "Sadam's breath smell" the owner of should have a system of getting the changes to the article and aproving it before the change goes global. That is all i have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:04, 2 April 2006 The first solution is to create a verion of the "temporarily" disabled banner that says "permanently" disabled for anon's NeoVampTrunks 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The first solution is to create a verion of the "temporarily" disabled banner that says "permanently" disabled for anon's NeoVampTrunks 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ronasi. If creating an was a more time-consuming and less anonymous, then less people would bother to do so just to vandalize articles. I know that it would be ideal for everyone to be able to quickly create an account and make valid contributions, but that's just a pipe dream. Let's be logical, if someone actually cared about contributing, they would put in the extra effort. --Insertrandomname 06:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I doubt making registration req would make a difference. All that would happen is that the vandals would now have accounts which they can continualy change, thereby having the IP address protected and making it impossible to block them. Besides, logging in doent make you unanonomous does it? for example, you don't see my name here unless i put it in. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I edit anonymously to avoid the endless miles of corrupt red tape set up around this site. Just write a damn encyclopedia, people. -, previously Kookykman.

Wikipedia and Google: Rivals or Allies?

I have seen, in an internet journal, an article on whether <Google> should continue status, in the eyes of many, as being virtually a synonym for search engine. This article compared Google to a number of rivals, and I am sorry to see that Wikipedia was down as one of them. This strikes me as strange, as it is not comparing like with like - it is not even like comparing apples with oranges, it is comparing rhubarb with cucumber, i.e. comparing a fruit with a vegetable (and yes, you smart alecs, I do know which way round that would be for rhubarb and cucumber!) I would like to see Google and Wikipedia, both excellent internet resources, as allies, not rivals. Indeed, I first learnt of Wikipedia through use of Google. ACEO 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Postscript: Just to clarify what I meant by saying that they are different. One is a search engine, one is an internet encyclopaedia. It will no do to compare like with unlike! ACEO 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo said it best in his C-SPAN interview -- Google (and all search engines) build their buisness model on ad revinue. This depends on people searching the internet for information they seek, which means that Google relies on their results (and the internet in general) being valid. We, WIkipedia, make the internet not suck. Thus, Google and Wikipedia are natural allies -- we give them the content they want (which brings visitors) and they direct people towards our data. Raul654 20:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The competition only occurs if people start realizing they don't need to search the whole internet, but can simply rely on wikipedia to have what they want. Raul654 20:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
But isn't is wrong to say that wikipedia encompasses all the information in a valid form whereas google lacks that? Wikipedia does not allow persons or musicians, for example, that are not noteworthy to have their own wikis. Google allows me to find information on the less noteworthy bands as well as information even on myself. Typing my own name into Google yields results that match sites which have valid information on me. Wikipedia won't allow a personal biography about me. Wikipedia is an unreliable means to find information on topics that are less recognized. SephyKid 07:29, April 4 2006 - EDT

Well, Wikipedia will actually allow you to search Google if not directly relevant articles are found, so they shouldn't really be called allies.Death Dark

Well, in a sense it is right to say that they should not be called either "Allies" or "Rivals", because one is a search engine, one is an Internet encyclopaedia. It would therefore be more accurate to ask whether other Internet encyclopaedias, such as the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, are rivals to Wikipedia. However, even here, one may ask whether it is correct to compare expert-written and wiki-based web resources. ACEO 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as Team-work

Just a thought - Would Wikipedia qualify as the largest team-work effort on the Internet or otherwise? Would it be fair to claim so in the summary? Do we have any references for the same? 07:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a search and I see that the phrases collaborative endeavour, collaborative effort, collaborative project, and collaborative work are used about Wikipedia. I like those better than the team work phrase, but there is another claim to the largest collaborative effort where it says "Leader of the Free World - How Linus Torvalds became the benevolent dictator of

Planet Linux, the biggest collaborative project in history (Wired News)." Maybe Wikipedia is the largest one on the internet.

I think your right because every time I search something on Google there is always a link going to a wikipedia arictle related to the thing I searched.

Wikipedia: The World's most up-to-date encyclopaedia?

I think the evaluation section could mention that one of the strengths of Wikipedia it is that is more up-to-date than paper-based encyclopaedias. For example, yesterday, <<Slobodan Milosevic>> was found dead, and by the end of yesterday, the article on Slobodan Milosevic had mentioned his date of death. How long would have to wait, if one were relying on a paper-based encyclopaedia, to get up-to-date versions of dates for famous people? In fact, this observation clarifies how Wikipedia can actually be more up-to-date than many daily newspapers published on paper. ACEO 13:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Now we can add to this list how quickly the dates of Gene Pitney, on the day of his passing away, were in Wikipedia! ACEO 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia was compared to the online version of Encyclopaedia Brittanica on "The Gadget Show", a television programme broadcast on British television on April 17 2006. It seems to be more up-to-date. ACEO 11:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A well-known Australian news reporter passed away today (7 May 06). I thought I would find out about this person on Wikipedia to find that only a few hours, his time-of-death and an explanation of the circumstances of his death were already posted.

It was just at the end of the Radio Four news tonight at almost six thirty (the Six o'clock News on BBC Radio Four lasts from Six to Six Thirty) that we were told "News Just in - a short while ago, we have heard that Billy Preston died". It is not quite 20: 28 in the United Kingdom (this will not be Greenwich Mean Time, as we are currently on British Summer Time here) and already, I see that the article on Billy Preston mentions that he died today. How is that for being up-to-date? I find Wikipedia a fascinating concept, as it helps to transcend the boundaries between encyclopaedias and newspapers. Compared to more traditional encyclopaedias, Wikipedia may not be so clearly written and may contain more bias, but on the positive side, would be far more up-to-date and would be far better for entries on popular and media culture, as viewers of The Gadget Show when it offered a very fair and balanced evaluation of Wikipedia will know. Exactly that same point could be made in comparing newspapers with encyclopaedias. The point must be mentioned, however, that since it will not now be until tomorrow's newspapers that we will be reading about Billy Preston's death, Wikipedia can claim to be more up-to-date than newspapers. ACEO 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


The article says that Wikipedia is pronounced /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/

Is the emphasis really on the second syllable? And what about that ː after the i? I pronounced Wikipedia as /ˌwɪ'kipidi.ə/ --Kinghajj 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Since, in the original words(encyclopedia, really), 'pe' recieves emphasis, probably. Curuinor 04:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm... the emphasis isn't on the second syllable in /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/, it's on the third (i.e. wikiPEdia). This is where I put the stress and where everyone else I've met does. The ː seems perfectly reasonable to me. I wouldn't say the syllable's significantly shorter than in 'pea'. Regarding the second vowel however, I would suggest that /ˌwɪkɪˈpiːdi.ə/ is a better representation - what do other people think? Garik 15:47, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Are there really that many ways to pronouonce it? Considering the spelling and similarity to encyclopedia (did i spell that right?) there arent many options. anyway, it isnt too important, as Wikipedia's nature will inevitably change it's pronunciation to whatever the majority call it.
If I had my way, we'd get rid of the pronunciation altogether. My own pronunciation is different from all of yours, and I suspect that if a pronunciation exists, people use it. <utterly hideous joke>It's spelt encyclopaedia, by the way.</utterly hideous joke> Ingoolemo talk 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
OF Course! I pronounce it "wicka (as in the black religion) pedia (as in encyclo-)". So does everybody I talk to because they hear me use it. I've lived in Hawaii and you rarely hear weekee--but you hear wickee a lot. Just rambling...

I learnt yesterday that in the Hawaian language, the "w" is pronounced as "v". So should we not say "Vikipedia" and talk about "vikis" on the web? (This information was, incidentally, disclosed to me by a man who now lives in Hawaii). ACEO 19:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I pronounce it more of wĭ-kĭ-pē-dē-ŭ. Death Dark Maybe a written-as-spoken form might be easier to understand, so it would be wih-kih-pee-dee-uh.

The 1,000,000th Article

See Special:Statistics

I think Wikipedia should have a great celebration on the one millionth article created. It's approaching fast! StargateX1 20:59, 17 Dec 05 (PST)

I don't know if you've found it yet, but you might be interested in the Millionth Article Pool, which is now closed. And there's the less serious yet very entertaining Millionth topic pool, in which you may still participate. --TantalumTelluride 03:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

200 articles to go. 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

100. 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1 million. Yay. Shawnc 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Drawing people to certain articles

I decided to say this here because this page is popular: I just wrote in my discussion page yesterday and no one's answered. How can Wikipedia users draw attention to certain pages they've put up or things they've written? I know my discussion contributions have been sitting unnoticed. Janet 23:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. --TantalumTelluride 06:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Aerobird (and anyone else)

I have a comment posted on the Peanuts characters birhtdays page. It is very important that someone answer because Aerobird has posted something very stupid. (No offense) Janet6 22:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


I understand that in the first line of the article there is a link to the page explaining what a wiki is... but shouldn't there at least be SOME explanation in this article? Seems a bit silly.

WikiPotter update

WikiPotter has been launched! People need to see it; it is lacking members. Janet6 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not precisely, as we already have the Harry Potter WikiProject and Portal. Also, this is not the appropriate place to be advertising new WikiProjects, check out Wikipedia:WikiProjects. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Italics in the names of encyclopedias

While editing Encyclopædia Britannica, I checked this article to find out whether or not the word "Britannica" ought to be italicized, and discovered -- to my horror -- that while this article never italicizes "Wikipedia", it sometimes italicizes "Britannica" and "Encarta" but at other times does not. What's going on here? 06:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

0h, teh h0rror! Robust Physique 04:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Pages or articles?

The article says that W has more than 3 million pages - should it not be articles? The number of pages (if one thinks of a standard european A4 page) must be far higher... Ulflarsen 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you are right about the pages. But we cannot include entries of user names, of guide lines, talk pages, and archives of talk pages as article! Therefore, there 3.5 million entries but the number of articles is fewer that that. If there are no suggetions then the wording in the main page has to be changed.Politis 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Usually when one refers to pages in regards to a website, they generally mean webpages, which can be arbitrarily large. -- Matthew0028 11:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for new wikis

I do not know if this page is the right place for this proposal. If it is not, please educate me. I would like to propose some new wikis to be companions and complements to Wikipedia:


Dedicated to speculation about the future - from astrology, futurology, religion, science, science fiction, etc. Would cover every year from here to infinity.


Dedicated to unorthodox speculation: UFOs, parapsychology, unusual and unpopular theories, etc.


Dedicated exclusively to manga and anime and characters therein.

-Das Baz - 03/14/2006, 2:27 PM. I want to see a Wiki free sattelite pic program like google earth where people can submit images they had taken for themselves from sattelite services. Just like knowledge should be free being able to look at the earth in hi res should be free too. It would be very helpful too poor farmers all over the world ect... I like looking at sattelite images to find nice places to hike.

try wikicities at this link: [1]. they have a whole bunch of wikis, probably including the stuff you asked about. if they don't have it, you can start it.--Alhutch 20:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Sadly pornopedia is already taken. Imagine, a porn site in wiki format, the mind boggles JayKeaton 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not one of these suggestions is interesting or necessary.{{nonsense}} This is because the topic is suggestions for NEW WIKIS not the system.

What You should Do and not do on Wiki

If you need help, click this: Mr. Mod 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) . It should have some basics of what your shouldn't do. Please follow them. --Mr. Mod 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Page view statistics

A caption on this page reads, "Wikipedia receives between 2000 and 7000 page views per second". I'm pretty sure that should say per minute (statistics page says maximum of 6 million per day for English version), but won't make the change until someone with more expertise confirms this. Trezatium 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The max number of page views for all languages is 13.3 million per day, which is just over 9000 per minute. Trezatium 23:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The figures above are from 2004, but are the most recent on the stats pages. Does anyone know of any more recent data? I know the site has become more popular but I find it hard to believe it is getting 50 times more page views than in October 2004. The figure quoted of 7000 per second means 4.2 billion page views per week. Even if every visitor looks at ten pages that's 420 million visitors, which is around 40% of all people with internet access according to Internet World Stats. According to Alexa, Wikipedia reaches around 30,000 per million web users, which is about 30 million people in total. I think the figures in the article here are wrong, but I don't know what the correct figures should be. Any ideas? Trezatium 20:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Nielsen reckons Wikipedia gets fewer than 34 million visitors per month (because its not in the top ten). Since nobody seems much interested in this topic I've changed the caption to read "well over 100 page views per second". Trezatium 13:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I put these numbers in a few weeks ago. When I looked at the daily traffic stats for the wikimedia cluster at I saw it varying between 2000 and 7000 views per second, depending on the time of day. Unfortunately this data appears to be only intermittently available.

Page views have increased by at least a factor of 10 since October 2004 according to, and the data was not reliable even then because HTML caching (which is not logged) was taking over an increasing proportion of the load. The stats page would suggest that the load barely increasing between July 2004 and October 2004, which is certainly not correct. According to Alexa's graph the traffic increased by at least 50% over that period.

If Apple is in the top ten and we're not then Nielsen's data is simply incorrect because we get three times more visitors than Apple [2]. However, I think their "audience" means unique vistors, which would roughly correspond to Alexa's "reach". Some tens of millions of unique visitors sounds about right.

I calculate that at an average of 4500 hits per second, and 5 pages per user we get about 540 million user visits per week, which makes sense since many vistors will look at wikipedia several times a week.

I think that 2000-7000 is correct, but until the reqstats graph is back up I can't prove it to you. However data from "2005 MySQL Application of the Year" at MySQL#Prominent_users gives 200 million hits per day (or 2300 per second), which supports my claim. I hope you don't mind, but I prefer to change it to "over 2000 page views per second". GeorgeStepanek\talk 14:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The daily traffic stats were unavailable when I tried as well, which is why I started looking elsewhere for clues. I don't doubt your honesty about what you saw there, but I still find it hard to believe such high figures can be accurate.
The MySQL data for Wikipedia actually refer to "queries" rather than page views. The data for Friendster suggests that each page view corresponds to many queries (18 in Friendster's case). Is it possible that the daily traffic data also refers to queries or to something else rather than page views?
540 million visitors per week represents more than half of all Internet users worldwide, which to me seems rather too many.Trezatium 20:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
In fact I misrepresented the Alexa data in my third post. The figure of 30,000 per million refers to daily reach - not weekly. So the site gets around 30 million visitors per day. If we also believe the Alexa figure of 5 page views per user per day then we get 150 million page views per day, which is about 1,700 per second. This is about ten times greater than the figure given in the Wikipedia page view stats for October 2004, which is consistent with the growth rate shown by Alexa. And this isn't allowing for the underestimation you have mentioned.
The total number of visitors per week doesn't have to be more than around 100 million, which seems reasonable (though it suggests Nielsen has got it wrong). So I take back what I said above. The statement "over 2000 page views per second" sounds fine by me. Sorry to cause so much fuss over this but at least we've found some consistency in the data. I'll change the caption.Trezatium 21:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah - I see you've changed it already.Trezatium 21:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Line Numbers

It would be very convinient to have line numbers in the margins when editing pages so you can reference them on the discussion pages. --vex5 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent edits could change the number of the line you're referencing. It's better to quote some of the text or name the section you're talking about. -Barry- 04:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
hoping to see links to posting responses right after the articles/messages.
Here are some related things I'd like to see:
  • Wikipedia keeping track of the author of every word of the article so when you highlight some text, you can click a link that drops down a menu of links to edit summaries for each edit that introduced a word or group of words in the highlighted text.
  • A shortcut for inserting HTML anchors and for wikipedians to be encouraged to create anchors and links to sections, even as small as one sentence, that they refer to in the discussion area.
  • Next to each edit link in the article, a related link that drops down a menu of links to references, external links, and other elements within the article that an editor selected as being in reference to (IRT) that section.
  • Next to each related link, a talk link that drops down a menu of links to discussions that are IRT that section, which would include a link that creates a new discussion that's IRT that section, with the new discussion having a default title of the name of the section of the article it's IRT.
  • A requirement that a title be included (using text surrounded by equal signs, or a shortcut) for every new entry on the Discussion page that's not part of a currently titled section.
  • An IRT link next to every item in the contents of the discussion page, with the link being titled (with an HTML title tag) with the name of the corresponding section of the article, and linking to that section of the article.
  • An automatic entry in the contents section of the discussion page for a new discussion that's IRT a section of the article, even if the number of topics on the discussion page is lower than the current number required for automatic creation of a contents section.
  • The ability to manually select a section of the article that a discussion is IRT from a drop down list.
By noon, Friday. -Barry- 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Although it's probably to be expected, there's no note in your article about your competition. Not even a highly-biased and dismissive "comparison" section. 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia" is a salesman's point of view

The claim that Wikipedia is an encylcopedia is no stronger than the claims to the contrary cited below - some are from scholars, others from editors of Web sites or just regular folks - no more or less authority than that behind the POINT OF VIEW that asserts as objective fact the construct that wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

  • "It will never be an encyclopedia," Danah Boyd, PhD candidate, University of California Berkely School of Information.
  • "'s a wikipedia, an entity in and of itself -- not an encyclopedia. If it isn't plainly varifiable, then take it with a grain of salt," said Scott Baradell, journalist and former Fortune 1000 media company executive.
  • "The WikiPedia is not an encyclopedia. No-one should be offended by that statement, it doesn't mean that it is less or more, it means it is different, something new," said Helmut Leitner, software developer, Graz, Austria.
  • "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia; rather it's a totally new phenomenon that so far can only be referred to by its proper name," said Igor Faslyeff.
  • "Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia," said Chris Wagner, who supports Wikipedia as a source of information.
  • "It's not an encyclopedia," said User:IMSoP, BSc, Infomatics, University of Reading.
  • "the simple fact is that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia: it's a search aggregator," said Josh Rothman, Masters Candidate, English, Harvard University.
  • "I wouldn't care so much if ... its branding didn't imply that it's an encyclopedia," said C. David Gammel, information consultant, Master of Arts in International Communication from American University in Washington, DC
  • "I would propose that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is in many ways like an encylopedia, just as the stone library lion is in many ways like a griffin. It is not, however, a griffin. Wikipedia is a wikipedia. Even the name speaks to its chimera nature. It is a new beast and in my view shouldn't be called an encylopedia. Call it a knowledge repository, or call it encyclopedia-like, or just call it what it is an information wiki," Josh Henry, tech analyst, Illinois.
  • "Both are large databases of user-submitted writeups. ...the entire contents of Wikipedia are technically suitable for addition to Everything2, E2 is not an encyclopedia." (Everything2 site information)
  • "Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia. It is not."
  • "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia," said Steve Dembo, editor of
  • "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia," said Michael Gregorievich Khmelnitsky, English honors student, University of British Columbia, Russian native,
  • "somebody needs to sue wikipedia for false representation. they are emphatically NOT an encyclopedia, and they need to stop presenting themselves as such," said Pault Theodoropoulus.
  • "Wikipedia is interesting but not an encyclopedia or even a reliable source," said Ron Brown.
  • "It is not an 'encyclopedia' in the sense that the offered information is complete, fact checked and refereed," Ronald J. Jack, British Columbia.

Before Nupedia was abandoned, contributors formed GNUpedia, and then changed the name to GNE -- for "GNE is Not an Encyclopedia". At about the same time, Wales and Sangler set up an open page system to accept draft content for the Nupedia project. Wales eventually declared that these perpetually revised drafts comprise "knowledge" and advanced an original claim that collectively they are an encylopedia. Tiyuiyutn 05:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's real nice, but my mother's hairdresser says that it is an encyclopedia, and he's also a Russian native. – ClockworkSoul 07:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Tiyuiyutn / User:Torlak / User:JohnAnderson, if you're interested in adding Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia as a criticism, please do. (And, again, please include a verifiable citiation.) However, your POV is not NPOV. Wikipedia identifies itself as an encyclopedia, as do other people, and "the free encyclopedia" is its slogan. To excise that fact from the article's intro is not NPOV and detracts from the article's comprehensiveness. In other words, it is not helpful.
At this point, I can't restore the intro for another 24 hours without violating WP:3RR. Please do not to change it. bcasterline t 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious... in what ways are paper encyclopedias more or less correct and/or verifiable than Wikipedia? In making any decision, I would think it would be up to the individual to weigh the opinions of the articles against eachother before rendering any sort of personal judgement. Just because Brittanica is printed on dead tree in a permenant form, it's implied that it's infallable?
I would tend to think that the sheer number of eyes (both expert and non) regularly contributing to, pruning, making adjustments to the facts of the articles, as well as the up-to-the-minute status of Wikipedia articles makes it more accurate than any printed materials by that virtue alone.
Of course, this is only my own thought on the matter. I'm fully in support of Wikipedia identifying itself as an encyclopedia.
~Kylu (u|t) 03:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone going to make note of the fact that the nature study was strongly criticized? --BigCow 17:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The link you post above is broken. However, I do agree that the sample sizes of the study were far too small to be considered definitive in any way. Ingoolemo talk 20:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha, it didn't distinguish between the link and my sig. Here's another one: --BigCow 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Better NPOV link. See also 1Nature's response (PDF). Gflores Talk 22:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Nature's response doesn't say anything, basically admiting their study sucked. The Psycho 06:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You guys need to pay more attention. The Nature study was performed on pages available online. The study found that for the casual web browser who does not have an account at Wikipedia or at Britannica, there were errors and omissions in the articles. Britannica articles often were from kid's editions, old editions, or abridged copies — but those were the pages that Britannica itself has made available online. Britannica was insulting Nature in order to save face, while not admitting that unlike Wikipedia, they do not make their entire repository an online resource free of charge. - CorbinSimpson 01:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments Needed!

We really need some secondary opinions as to whether the intro of this article should describe Wikipedia as an encyclopedia or not. It did so for a long time, but User:Tiyuiyutn / User:Torlak / User:JohnAnderson arrived shortly after EB's response to the Nature study and begin to change the intro to say that Wikipedia "is a website that hosts a multilingual free-content knowledge database that is editable by anyone." His changes have basically taken this form. This change was reverted several times by User:Bcasterline, but Torlak reverted again each time. I myself tried rewriting the intro as a compromise so as to incorporate most of the edits, but not the POV inherent in avoiding calling Wikipedia "an encyclopedia". Torlak blindly reverted this change, including the grammar correction. In the interest of discussion, I outline below my general objections to the new version of the intro.

Calling Wikipedia a “database” does absolutely nothing for the reader. It is largely true that it Wikipedia is a “large collection of data organized especially for rapid search and retrieval” [3] (it would be true except for the “especially”), but that superficial description could apply to almost any website and does not aid an unfamiliar reader in their understanding of Wikipedia. On the other hand, “encyclopedia” is a far more descriptive term that addresses all aspects of Wikipedia. Torlak has asserted in his edit summaries that calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia is POV. In doing so he demonstrates a very limited understanding of policy, precedent, and common usage. Wikipedia’s identity as “a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject” [4] cannot be reasonably disputed. In addition, numerous sources support this claim as demonstrated here by User:Simetrical. The article has a whole section devoted to criticism of Wikipedia, and the intro should not be used as a soapbox.

This is an issue that has been discussed here, on Jimbo’s talk page and on the talk pages of individual users, and it seems to me that most users are in favor of “encyclopedia.” Please comment though and if no significant objects are raised I will again edit the introduction to reflect consensus. Thanks. Canderson7 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (edited 22:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes, I agree, based on the standard definition of an ecyclopedia, WP clearly is one. Calling it not one is simply a reactionary stance by brick and mortar publishers that want to reserve the word for their product. Pragmatically, you have evidence it is one, the description is more useful as you mentioned, and it would take better evidence that it is not to overturn it. - Taxman Talk 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Twenty-four hours have passed and the only comment is in support of "encyclopedia." I have edited the article accordingly. Canderson7 (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit disingenuous to ask for opinions when you told Tiyuiyutn (who by the way is not me as you seem to suggest): "I have tried to be helpful, but you still refuse to see reason. There is nothing further to be gained from this discussion. This is our final interaction. Goodbye and good luck." Tiyuiyutn has discussed the matter on his talk page as well as here. I don't bother to discuss this with you when I have to assume you would end the discussion in the same way when you're out of arguments. Moreover, your repeated accusation that I'm "blindly" reverting is not true at all. I look at any edit and keep any useful changes, I'm just reverting your POV. And I don't see where you made a grammar correction. Torlak 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for coming to discuss things on the talk page. My comment was meant to put an end to a long and argumentative conversation that was developing on Tiyuiyutn's talk page but had nothing to do with a particular article. Wikipedia is based in large part on consensus, so it is in no way "disingenuous" to ask for the opinions of other editors (I don't know why you think it is). Tiyuiyutn is welcome to respond to my above remarks as are you. The grammar correction was made to the last sentence in the second paragraph. Canderson7 (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is clearly an encyclopedia; regardless of whether you (Torlak) feel that it should qualify as one, Wikipedia is generally regarded as one and referred to as such. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Tiyuiyutn's collection of quotes above disproves this. Critics often dispute that it is an encyclopedia. And I'm not saying the article should say that it isn't one, so anyone who thinks it is "clearly" an encyclopedia should not be offended by my version. After all it starts right off by quoting Wikipedia's self-description, "The Free Encyclopedia". Even if you think it is an encyclopedia you have to agree it is (also) a website and a database. If your definition of encyclopedia is broad enough, you can just take "knowledge database" as a synonym and assume for yourself that it is ("clearly") an encyclopedia. But at the same time the article satisfies those who have a narrower definition of an encyclopedia (arguing, for example, that if it may contain patent nonsense or libels for months and surely contains millions of inaccurate facts at any time, then it's not exactly a compendium of knowledge). Toralk 01:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Many critics believe that reliability is a key aspect of encyclopaedias that Wikipedia lacks—and they do have a point. To these critics, Wikipedia will never be more than a pretender. However, I have a very simple solution (one that I proposed some time ago) that should adequately satisfy both size: referring to Wikipedia as an 'encyclopedia project' rather than as an 'encyclopedia'. This very minor distinction both succeeds in alluding to the controversy without going to such ridiculous lengths as calling it a 'knowledge database'. Ingoolemo talk 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This is my opinion (and as such won't make it into article space, at least not authored by me), but: It appears to me, that the notion that encyclopedias must clear a hurdle of "reliability" (one, which it is alleged, that Wikipedia inherently lacks) in order to be worthy of the name, is a bit of FUD which was recently invented to discredit Wikipedia. A brief perusal of, or any fine bookseller, reveals thousands of publications, of varying levels of merit and authority, calling themselves "encyclopedias" of something or another. Nobody is challenging the right of say, Oh, Yuck: The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty (ISBN 0761107711), to bill itself as such. Wikipedia, despite the drawbacks inherent in the open-editing model, is far more useful than the vast majority of the publications passing themselves off as encyclopedias, including several general-purpose, brick-and-mortar publications. This sort of criticism would be like Oracle huffing that MYSQL isn't a RDBMS because it lacks some particular feature, Mercedez-Benz suggesting that Kias aren't really automobiles, or any other example of an established purveyor of some good or service trying to redefine the product in question, to exclude an emerging competitor.
Whether or not Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia is a more interesting question. In some ways, Brittanica remains superior; in others Wikipedia has the advantage. But disputing that Wikipedia is, at least in some fashion, an encyclopedia, is FUD.
--EngineerScotty 01:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Ageee with EngineerScotty - Wikipedia is clearly an encyclopedia. It has pros and cons which can be described and debated, but nothing takes away from the fact that it is an encyclopedia. Johntex\talk 02:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The word 'project' connotates a lack of completeness. Britannica, although incomplete and systemically flawed, is not a project, but a publication, put to the presses and placed in bindings. Is Wikipedia really so far behind that we must allow ourselves to be demeaned by that word? I'm removing it. - CorbinSimpson 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason why I used the phrase 'encyclopedia project' is that I don't consider it demeaning at all, and I vehemently disagree with the assertion that Britannica cannot be described as an 'encyclopedia project'. I also vehemently dispute your assertion that my proposal has been voted down—as far as I know, whenever I've proposed it there have never been comments in response. Ingoolemo talk 01:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions for "encyclopedia" gleaned from [5]:

  • A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.
  • a compendium of knowledge, either general (attempting to cover all fields) or specialized (aiming to be comprehensive in a particular field).
  • a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular speciality

This is the mainstream view of what an encyclopedia is. A few critics of Wikipedia have tried to assert that to be an encyclopedia requires a degree of reliability to qualify. We can mention this criticism in either here or Criticism of Wikipedia, but their novel definition of "encyclopedia" is so fringe a viewpoint that we can safely declare Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia without violating NPOV (in the same way we can assert that the holocaust happened despite holocaust denial). — Matt Crypto 13:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(Incidentally, this redefinition of "encyclopedia" to exclude Wikipedia reeks of foul play. It's a low tactic, like asserting that popular music isn't music simply because you feel it has no artistic merit. Nonsense: at most, it's simply bad music. Similarly, Wikipedia may be judged to be an unreliable encyclopedia, but to deny that it's actually an encyclopedia is either delusion or spite.) — Matt Crypto 13:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User Takrol/Torlak/Tokral/ et al

Just to let people know, these are all sockpuppets of the banned User:Wik. They can be reverted and banned at will, with no concern for 3RR issues etc. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just curious--how do you know? (Not doubting you, but just wondering) --EngineerScotty 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with Wik, and I have access to CheckUser. Jayjg (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I though he seemed a little too knowledgeable about Wikipedia. Good job spotting that. Canderson7 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Britannica rebuttal of Nature article

Britannica's rebuttal of the Nature survey came out on March 24 and should also be mentioned and cited. Perhaps you could use this Wikinews article. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 02:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kaka Ferskur

I've created another new article. Anyone, come check it out! Janet6 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Stable version link

I just removed the box linking to Wikipedia/Stable. Surely this stuff should be kept in the talk and project namespaces - it's a self-reference too far. Feel free to object; I insist that the selfref template is used if it's replaced. BigBlueFish 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Added sprotect

...given that lots of "new" users seem to have taken an interest in this page. If anyone objects, feel free to remove --EngineerScotty 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should scare new users off. There isn't more vandalism on this page than on, say, Saddam Hussein. I'll have a go at removing it, but, being new to this whole sprotect idea, doubt that a non-admin can remove it. Nippoo 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's fine, unless there's something deeper to undo. Nippoo 22:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm embarassed to report, all I did was add the template to the page. As I'm not an admin, I can't actually sprotect a page, adding the sprotect tag at the top just causes the template to be displayed; it doesn't protect anything. --EngineerScotty 23:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive this page

I guess that normal users can't move this page. Would an admin please archive this discussion? It's getting rather lengthy. Isopropyl 06:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not get moved: the history stays here. But see Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 7 --Henrygb 23:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Maybe this] should be added. --Striver 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Esquizombi 18:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My employer's net nanny blocked that page as hate speech; which suggests to me that it's a rather dubious reference for an encyclopedia.
Keep in mind, that the External Links section on this page shouldn't be a laundry list of commentary about Wikipedia. Rather, it should primarily be a bibliography to support the claims made in the article. If Wikipedia Review or some other site isn't used to support the claims made in the article (and isn't otherwise exceptional), then it doesn't belong in the External Links section. WR, unfortunately, doesn't make any any substantial and authorative claims that aren't better made elsewhere. (WR contributors do make some original claims concerning Wikipedia, but virtually all of those are outright BS, or at least not supported by anything more substantial than someone's opinion).
In general, Criticism of Wikipedia is a better place for many of the anti-Wikipedia links.
--EngineerScotty 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The page's title is "Wikipedia - Unbiased Encyclopedia or a 'Jewish Tool'." I would have to guess there there are some Jewish POV-pushers as editors on WP just as there's likely anti-Jewish POV pushers here too, but I also think that the number of people interested in NPOV on such topics is greater. Striver, that site is saying that all wikipedians are "Jewish volunteers" and I know you're not, so why you would grant that site any credance, I can't imagine. For them to claim that WP is a "Jewish Tool" is fundament(alistic)ally stupid. Esquizombi 19:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Striver, are you in Al-Qaeda or something? Your contributions to Wikipedia certainly suggest it... Either that or some other Nazi-like anti-semitic Islamofascistic organization... Bob, just Bob 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As frustrating as Striver can be, Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks. Also, Striver self-identifies as Shi'a, and the Shi'a and the Sunni Al-Q don't get along AFAIK. Esquizombi 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Viewing diff of protected article

How the hell am I supposed to see exactly what chenges were made between versions now that this article has been blocked from editing?

You don't need to be able to edit to see changes. Click the history tab and click one of the "last" links to view the difference between that version and the previous. Or use the radio buttons and hit the "Compare selected versions" button. --Optichan 13:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Request unprotection because was not protected for any valid reason other than because of the POV of the administrator involved (Raul654, he thinks it's a "troll site" despite [ the obvious fact that it isn't if you read some of the posts there in the Wikipedia Discussion forum].

Also was not listed (or any reason supplied) on Wikipedia:List of protected pages as per the Template:Protected Raul654 put on the Wikipedia page in his edit. Bob, just Bob 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that some of Bob's behaviour is appalling, but putting that aside for a moment I don't get why we shouldn't give a link. It's a pretty popular site with a particular sort of Wikipedia editor/malcontent - for that reason it's a potentially useful resource for anyone studying the dynamics of Wikipedia. There is nothing to be afraid of including it in the long list of external links and references. Pcb21 Pete 18:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia [Review] is a tiny forum with less than 100 members and roughly 300 topics. If the topic of this website was cats and we had an article on it, AFD would eat it for lunch. It is not representative of anything, it's just someone's hobby and has no heft at all. There's no way it belongs in a list of resources. Rx StrangeLove 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but I don't understand the analogies about cats/Afd/etc. On the other hand, Wikipedia Review is representative of something - the views of a minority of disaffected Wikipedians. It doesn't an article, but it is completely harmless to have it a list of resources and should be there. Pcb21 Pete 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
AFD probably wasn't a great analogy, the point I was making though is that it's a tiny web site that people who edit here run and/or contribute to. It doesn't have a unique or substantial point of view nor does it have a collection of resources that can't be gotten elsewhere. The point is if the article was about cats and such a small forum was added it would be removed as spam, this should be no different. That might change if it grew to a large size or started to contain resources or criticism that weren't available elsewhere. Rx StrangeLove 19:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean "added as a reference", such as to an article about cats. At any rate, it is interesting and useful to re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and compare WR to the criteria set forth therein. WR might be useful as a "for further reading" link (on Criticism of Wikipedia, not here)--but it has no bibliographic utitilty to any Wikipedia content. It's not that it's anti-Wikipedia, we link to lots of things which are. --EngineerScotty 19:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree precisely with EngineeerScotty. The Wikipedia Review link does not add significantly to this article about Wikipedia. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
That's what I meant yes...if an equivalent link was added as a reference to an article that was not about Wikipedia, there wouldn't be any argument about it's deletion. Rx StrangeLove 03:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Right to add * to spam blacklist?

I don't mind that much that others disagree with me about the link. No big loss to leave it out. I *do* think it is a bit outrageous that * has been added to the spam blacklist on meta by Raul654 ([6]) without so much as an edit summary as to what he was doing. That is obviously an abuse of what the spam blacklist is for... Pcb21 Pete 07:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that was inappropriate. A couple of banned editors were adding links to the site just about every time they posted, using sockpuppets. This thread was started by one of them, for example. It's an inappropriate site to link to and they were spamming, so adding it to the spam blacklist seems exactly the right thing to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The spam blacklist is used to block commercial spammers spraying their links over lots of pages and wikis. This case is totally different. Even that the link is "inappropriate" is a matter of debate. Pcb21 Pete 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to bat-smg:

Please add an interwiki link to the Samogitian version of this article:



 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Very worried

I was very startled when I read these facts on the Internet: 1) I read that someone named Eva Nugent (I think that's the name) published a paper proving Harry Potter is gay. They said that he has a secret love for Draco Malfoy and that his wand represents femininity and homosexuality. Also, his discovering and accepting he's a wizard in Sorcerer's Stone represents his coming out as gay, I read. This can't be true--J. K. Rowling is a good person--why would she write about something like that? Also 2) a startling study from the BBC said that Encyclopaedia Britannica is more accurate than Wikipedia. They said Wikipedia's Dolly the Sheep article had eight seriously wrong facts. Are we still credible after this? Someone please help... Janet6 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This page really isn't the place for the Harry Potter business. In the future, you should post at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. In any case, I really hope that you don't take everything you hear at face value like that. Anyone can publish a paper that interprets a fictional story in a different light; just because someone reads the story a different way doesn't "prove" anything. Isopropyl 23:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, please note that we're still a work in progress. Encyclopedia Britannica is a well-respected encyclopedia, and we are constantly striving to improve our encyclopedia and standards. Until then, keep in mind that it is recommended that you double check all facts; errors have even been found in Britannica. Also, you may wish to read this story. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)—I don't know whether Harry Potter is gay, and frankly I don't really care. But I can address your concerns about Wikipedia. There have been numerous comparisons between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias published. Some of them show little difference in the quality of Wikipedia articles and those of Britannica and Encarta, while others conclude that Wikipedia is nothing more than a cult or even an MMORPG. I am satisfied, though, because I know that Wikipedia helped me immensely throughout high school; and it is still an invaluable resource in college. I also realize that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so I know that some information might be innaccurate or even vandalism. That's why I always use common sense and check Wikipedia articles against other sources before relying on them. If it makes you feel any better, you can see a comparison between Wikipedias disclaimer and those of some other major encyclopedias at Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Examples of other encyclopedia disclaimers. Wikipedia is very different from Britannica. In some ways Wikipedia is better; in some ways it's worse. But one thing is for sure: It makes the internet not suck! --TantalumTelluride 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Throwaway accounts

What's with the one-edit accounts that are created simply to revert this page? Given the amount of vandalism and reversion since the page was unprotected, should it be reprotected? Isopropyl 03:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For an explination of the throw-away accounts, see the Mediawiki bug report I filed here. I've been needling the developers to fix this (see the comment I recently made with a proposed solution), and I hope Rob Church might be doing it soon. Raul654 04:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dai Lllana

A friend told me to post an article called "Dai Llana" on Wikipedia, talking about a woman born 11 September 1978 who claimed she was a goddess. I looked in sources, but I couldn't find a single trace of Dai Lana ... is it true? Janet6 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A question like this belongs to the reference desk. However, in the meantime, please keep in mind that all articles on Wikipedia must be based on verifiable sources, and if you can't find any reference to it, it most likely is not true; thus, please don't create such an article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian (bokmål) and Norwegian (Nynorsk)

In the "Alternative spelling" section, Norwegian should be divided in to [[no:|Norwegian (Bokmål)]] and [[nn:|Norweigan (Nynorsk)]]. Kurtber 08:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Another award for Wikipedia

In Awards section there should be info about User:Kpjas (Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz) and his friend User:Ptj (dr Paweł Tomasz Jochym). Why? They won awards of Internet Citizen of the Year (pl:Internetowy Obywatel Roku) in 2004 for creating Polish Wikipedia and impresive input in its advancement. Hołek ҉ 18:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

True nature of Wikipedia

The true nature of Wikipedia is revealed by the fact that (as of today, 01:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) the article on John Donne (a really major English poet, for those who don't know) is approximately 8.3 kbytes long, while the article on Internet Troll is approximately 47.8 kbytes — that is 5.7 times as large! The facts speak for themselves, no comment needed. Ekjon Lok 01:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • What, pray tell, should the correct ratio be? A common theme of criticism of Wikipedia is that allegedly frivolous topics often are covered in greater depth and breadth than some allegedly serious topics. While I won't dispute the fact that WWE wrasslers are better covered than English poets... is that really a problem? And what, other than attracting editors who have interest (and knowledge) in English poetry and who are willing to improve the articles on that subject, should we do about it? Trim the article on Internet Troll down to size (or AfD it entirely), until serious topics get their due--so that we cover topics in roughly the same proportions as Britannica or other print encyclopedias? While WP should strive to be as accurate as the best print encyclopedias (keeping in mind that they too have numerous errors), I don't think that we should mirror their editorial policies on coverage, necessarily. If I want the EB, I know where to find it. :) --EngineerScotty 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
There's going to be an inevitable "imbalance" of article topics as long as the editing is done by unpaid volunteers who work on what they choose to work on instead of being able to be ordered around by the central management. There will be articles on each Pokémon and American Idol semifinalist if there are fans of those things among Wikipedians, but it might be harder to get people to put work into articles on subjects they were forced to learn about in school and were bored silly about. That's just the way this site works, and the only solution is for editors who do care about those other subjects to get on and create or improve the articles in question. *Dan T.* 23:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
How amazing that an online encyclopedia written entirely by volunteers will be biased toward things that suit those kinds of people. You don't like it, try and fix it yourself--that's the idea (Sir Elderberry, forgetting to log in) 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Is it just me or has the wikipedia favicon been changed to the wikimedia favicon??? 11:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a W for me. It always has been. Optichan 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, seriously, click here for a screenshot of this site using the Opera browser:

That's odd. favicon.ico is a W. I don't know why it shows differently for you in Opera. Optichan 18:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

hmm, when i use Opera it's still the standard 'W'. i'm not using the latest version though.--Alhutch 16:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Different browsers act differently. It's possible for you it's cached, also, some wont "search" for a favicon unless its specified in the page source. Wolfmankurd 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Need an interwiki link

Since editing of this page is currently disabled, will one of the 'responsible' users please add the following interwiki link?


It's been added already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah. I did that. Sorry for not mentioning it. --Optichan 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive of main article history

Is it possible to archive the history of the main article? It's just that whenever I go to look at the latest difference to check for vandalism, it always takes an absolute age to show because the page history is slowing the page load down. -- Francs2000 20:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just set your preferences, so that only the last 50 changes will be shown in any history page. gala.martin (what?) 22:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo inconsistency

If I compare the image[7] on the wikipedia page with the permanent logo on the top-left of every page (e.g. the Main Page), the capital omega (Ω) on the top-left of the image appears to be different. On this page it shows just the greek letter, while on all other pages it it preceeded by an apostrophe ('Ω). I've checked with other users and they agree that they don't match, so I don't think it's just me going mad. Is this a feature of certain browsers, or a general inconsistency? Kayman1uk 10:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I think I get it. Behold Nohat-logo-nowords-bgwhite-200px! See the backwards N? It's also missing an accent. And if someone could give me the name of the backwards N that would be nice. :) --Optichan 13:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The letter Й is apparently called Short I, it is part of the Russian, Ukrainian and Bulgarian alphabets. The Ώ character is part of the Greek alphabet and is descibed in unicode as "Greek capital letter Omega with tonos" (tonos is apparenlty equivalent to acute accent. Thryduulf 14:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The ultimage origin of that image appears to be Commons:Image:Wikipedia-logo.png. I've noted this on the talk page of that image Commons:Image talk:Wikipedia-logo.png as well. Thryduulf 12:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


The word "unvalid" should be replaced by "invalid".

Fixed. In the future you can make such changes yourself. 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am changing the "has" in this sentence to "have". Please correct if mistaken. "Although several other encyclopedia projects exist or have existed on the Internet, none has achieved Wikipedia's size and popularity" Popher 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case, if you replace "none" with "not one", "has" is correct. Changed. Isopropyl 20:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Image caption

caption writeen below the image are incorrect. As image displays that it was last edited on March 30, 2001 whereas caption states it is Wikipedia's English edition on March 20, 2001. I think there is need to correct caption accordingly. Shyam (T/C) 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! Feel free to change that yourself in the future. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast response. Shyam (T/C) 21:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Im not sure this site is appropriate for this page; perhaps Criticism of Wikipedia might be a better place. For one thing, it doesn't directly support any claims made on this page (CoW has a section on alleged administrator abuse, which Wikitruth seems to be targeted to). For another, contrary to the claim of the user who put it here, whether it is a reliable source is questionable.

Of course, many think that wikis are inherently unreliable, which is the basis for many criticisms of Wikipedia.

Since the link was posted by what appears to be an established user, and not an obvious sockpuppet, I won't revert pending any discussion. --EngineerScotty 17:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The link should be removed. It adds nothing to the article. The website it links to is completely non-notable. It has a non-existent Alexa ranking. It is currently down, so its reliability is an issue. The site is low on contributors. When I checked a couple of days ago, there were only 7 registered accounts at the site, 2 of which have the majority of the edits. The site is short on content - click "random article" a few times and you'll get a duplicate article in just a few clicks. The site is basically a blog started by a small handful of anonymous people (maybe even as few as one or two people plus some sockpuppets) to complain about Wikipedia. These sites don't deserve us boosting their page ranks. If they get to be important websites then we should absolutely link to them, but we shouldn't boost them on their way. Johntex\talk 17:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, remove the link. I don't mind linking to a criticism of Wikipedia, of course, but it should be much more notable. --Ashenai 11:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative spellings"

Why is this section still here? This is dictionary content, not encyclopedia content. I'd have expected it to be removed months ago on such a high-profile page... -Silence 09:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many different spellings and languages with different alphabets to be all listed on this page. You could create a page such as List of alternative spellings of Wikipedia. SCHZMO 22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Why would such a page be any more encyclopedic? Translations are listed on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. -Silence 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a useful and valid section. If it gets too big we should just do as User:Schzmo# suggests and create a subsidiary list article. It is not too large at present. --Mais oui! 00:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't useful. I said it wasn't encyclopedic. Move it to Wiktionary, where there already is a list just like this that could probably use some expansion. I've seen many FACs fail because the article had a list exactly like this one; we shouldn't hold such a blatant double-standard by banning lengthy lists of translations from every article on Wikipedia except Wikipedia. -Silence 00:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Success Factors

Wikipedia's success mainly depends on its users - the Wikipedians. In theory, everybody can be a Wikipedian. This article is supposed to find out if the theory holds true in practice.

The idea is that the Wiki-community of Wikipedians is a special group of people, who have special characteristcs. To account for these special characteristics, I have provided the following Factor Model:

User factors: - Openness - Computer Skills - Motivation - Neutrality - Flat hierarchy

Knowledge factors: - Type of knowledge - Fast changing rate - Peer review

Technology factors: - Easy usability - Fast access - Infinite reach, multilingual - Flexible structure - Safe

All these factors play together to accomplish the goal of succesful knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.

Comments, feedback and own ideas are very welcome!

Who owns Wikipedia?

There is a discussion on Dvoraks blog from someone that states that Jimmy Wales could at any time turn around and make Wikipedia into a pay-only site or sell off all the content the way he sees fit. Some there have tried to tell them that it's protected by the copy-left and is under the Wikipedia Foundation. But this one induvidual there seems to think that since Wales used to run a "money grubbing pornography site" that he would have no qualms in selling off Wikipedia and leaving everyone in the dust. So, who owns Wikipedia and could Wales actually do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ksgant (talkcontribs) .

The wikimedia foundation owns wikipedia and there isn't really much to sell other than the brand name and some massively overloaded servers. The content is under the GFDL so anyone can set up mirrors and the like.Geni 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is worthless without thousands of volunteers to maintain it. Hence, all your base are belong to us. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to common terms

I have resisted making this comment before, partly because I wasn't sure if this was the original intention, and partly because I hoped it would get better, but linking to common terms in Wikipedia makes a mockery of the tool.

When I read, as I just did, an article on a movie plot, and the description tells me that the characters went on a "vacation" -- vacation is a link that takes me to nothing that has anything to do with the movie or plot or particular destination of the characters. It takes me to "vacation", a la a dictionary. Similarly, the vacation page may mention Mexico, which is a link. A link to Mexico vacation spots? No, that would be too logical. A link to the Mexico page, full stop, just in case I don't know what Mexico is.

Is this policy? Is this the fault of a bad practice spread initially by a few wrongheaded users? It certainly does no good for Wikipedia or its users, who I think are looking for an encylopedia, not a dictionary. At least a linked term should contextually link the current subject to the linked matter, not treat the linked matter as a separate subject. Otherwise, every other word in Wikipedia should be a link. Half of the words I've used here could be links, so you could get interesting detail on things like "word" and "links". Useless. 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Randal

FTR that's precisely one of my favorite things about WP and the Web in general. I'm not saying this to argue with Randal. Just info on existing viewpoint that is very different. I really enjoy jumping from one topic to an apparently unrelated one. And I find it is a free-associaton process that reflects certain aspects of both the mind and the internet. As a matter of fact, if I learn how to make links, i might create right here a link to the Burne Hogarth article and to language/language theory. Hogarth wrote and drew a story called "The God of Tarzan" in one of the Tarzan books of the 70s, in which (at the beginning) Tarzan finds several books and a dictionary. He speaks no language, but examines them over the years, and he understands how language is self referring in an infinite way, and discovers an infinite, intricate meandering of ideas. Passaggio 23:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Some page stats (using JS)

Viewing article modification statistics (from the 500 edits shown on this page):

  • 42.6% quick reverts (any) (213 edit(s))
  • 39.4% probable reverts of vandalism (197 edit(s))
  • 44.8% IP/anon edits (224 edit(s))
  • 5.4% likely new user edits (27 edit(s))
  • 55.2% registered user edits (276 edit(s))
  • 49.8% likely older user edits (249 edit(s))

Time range (from the 8 approximate days shown on this page):

  • Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 27, April, 2006
  • Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 20, April, 2006


  • 60.893 edit(s) per day
  • 25.94 revert(s) per day

25.94....geesh...Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Permission and jpg pictures

Dear Sirs,

this is not a comment but simply a request for help. As a university teacher, I would like to include some of articles from Wikipedia in my lectures, not from a scientific point of view, but from a linguistic point of view. I would like to teach my students the terminology (vocabulary) related to traffic and transport. Do I have to ask your permission for that? And under which conditions would the Wikipedia let me do it? And one more very important issue foe me: how can I get some of the pictures/photographs from Wikipedia in jpg?

Thanks a looooooooot for your answer (whichsoever)!

Kind regards,

Tamara Polić. prof. The Polytecnic of Rijeka e-mail: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Unless I am mistaken, Wikipedia was created with that exact purpose in mind. Doubtfully anybody here (or up at Wikimedia, for that matter) will be anything but flattered by Your request. It's not a good idea to claim authorship over Wikipedia articles, but citing them is probably fine.
As for images, just right-click on one and "Save as" in any format you want. Hope that helps, --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which you can read here.--Alhutch 03:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
in simple terms, prof. Tamara Polic: feel free! just be kind and give credit to where the stuff comes from. (and if your mouse only has a button, use the "ctrl" (or such) key on the keyboard while you click, and choose your options! : ) Passaggio 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Gone Wrong?

All is not well. There problems plaguing Wikipedia, like legal pressure, trolls, lible laws, and ambigious policies. These have caused this beautiful experiment to turn into a bureaucratic nightmare.

A nice example, is the spam blacklist, now its all fair and good to block abusive sites, scrapers etc, but its reprehensible blacklist a perfectly acceptable site, because it opposes yours. This is nicely illustrated by a comment in the blacklist: #per recommendation of B. Patrick, the Foundation's attorney.

I look at the title of the page, and I see spam blacklist, not "People who oppose the regime".

I'd be prepared to bet that this won't be here in a few days due to the censorship that has eaten its way into the Editors psyche and made a little nest. See you when this isn't here.

This just got deleted, about 5 minutes after i'd posted it. This is a repost. Go figure.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

You dare speak out against Wikipedia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Criticism of Wikipedia's vulnerability

By opening it to everyone some people can post un-true infomation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

You speak the obvious. 05:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Since I am the one who moved this to the talk page, I feel I am responsible for any and all misunderstandings arising. Thus, I must clarify: the comment regarding false information was originally placed in the article itself. For obvious reasons, I removed it. However, assuming good faith, I placed it on the talk page, in the hopes that it will drive someone so inclined to insert such a claim in an organized fashion into the article. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Most people will say that. And I understand that argument, that someone changing facts may go unnoticed. But for every vandal, there's an admin, or at least a vigilant user. I would know. I am was a vandal myself. 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason for this is as follows: Vandal changes a year 1920 to 1940. Admins patrol Recent Changes. Admin or user goes to page and wonders why fact was changed. One user or admin knows that event happened in 1920, so they revert it. User/admin takes a look at the vandal's edits and realizes that vandal has been changing dates. User/admin tracks the vandal and reverts his changes, because they're false. Finally, after warnings and when enough is enough, BANNINATED! That was efficient, wasn't it? 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is so blatantly self-serving and POV. Significant amounts of biased and unverifiable information is posted on Wikipedia and yet we still have the brass considering it an authoritative resource. What a crock. Haizum 21:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia appears to conform to many items on Cult checklists. Perhaps some mention of this needs to be made. - Xed 09:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I.618033989 00:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia meets none of the indicators of a cult. Cereal box conspiracy 04:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason people feel the need to vandalise this page:

Every time they do so, a small dosage of irony is injected into their bloodstream, and it gives them an artificial high. Just figured I'd point that out.-- 02:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes...thats why we need TWO wikipedia pages now :p

Wiki wiki wild

Why does Wiki_wiki_wild redirect here? JayKeaton 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC) I put wiki wiki wild into a search and it came here, but wikipedia isn't what I was thinking of when I put it in. JayKeaton 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's slogan is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," regardless of qualifications. It is developed using a type of software called a "wiki", a term originally used for the WikiWikiWeb and derived from the Hawaiian wiki wiki, which means "quick". Jimmy Wales intends for Wikipedia to ultimately achieve a "Britannica or better" level of quality and be published in print."-- 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Is this not vanity? 23:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be if Wikipedia was not notable. However, Wikipedia has become sufficiently notable that it should definitely have an article. For example, Wikipedia meets pretty much all of our notability guidelines for websites (WP:WEB), and it greatly exceeds many other unofficial tests typically used such as the Google test and the Alexa rank test. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed this is redundant?

Isn't it kinda weird wikipedia wrote an article about itself? kekenkenka 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I still dont see why we need TWO WP pages...
Well, it would seem to be vanity, ONLY if it was presented with bias. It would be undesirable if it left the bad crap out, but presenting a NPOV article about oneself isn't bad unless you're unnotable (like me). I created an article about myself before I knew that even Wiki had notability guidelines. Oh well. When I'm famous maybe we'll discuss it. 17:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Encarta has an article on Encarta... and also on Wikipedia. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 22:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I've always thought:

Wouldn't be awesome to make a portable Wikipedia? Sort of like a a real life hitchhiker's guide.It has every article and can update from anywhere via satellite.

Comments? 22:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe they are working on such a project. If they aren't, it will inevitably show up sometime in the near future.-- 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There are already a few people that have downloaded the Wikipedia in its entirety and placed it on DVDs or other portable storage devices. Granted, its obsolete before it can be finished downloading, but it still represents a major portion of human knowledge. Firestorm 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and the Communism guy got banned, so...

What is it? Random the Scrambled 15:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A meritocracy: a system in which one's standing is determined by their contribution to society.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Neither a social experiment nor a form of government. It's an encyclopedia. Jkelly 16:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Amen to Jkelly. Ingoolemo talk 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I HEAVILY suggest that the wikipedia page be locked Tinlv7 03:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? And you're right, Jkelly, but I heard BorgHunter say that it's not a democracy, so I was just curious. Random the Scrambled 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC) J
From experience: Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. This does not mean that it is a government; rather, it is organized and run by due process, and without process, there is no order or social contract. There are three levels of user. The average user is simply a person who contributes. The next tier consists of administrators, who have been hand-picked by the community to perform mundane tasks determined as a result of process. The final tier consists of users whose power is rooted in their long stay on Wikipedia, and whose opinions and grasp of policy and process are considered exemplary. They are the final authority.
The actual method of determining social opinion on an issue is performed by poll, although users in the upper tiers are given permission to attach merit to individual pollers, thus allowing a poll to skew heavily towards users who have traits such as "large edit count," "good edits," and "well-made points." Polls are also usually accompanied by dialectic discussion, causing the process to form a synthetic opinion along with a final decision. In cases where the polling is done in the upper tier, such as Arbitration Committee cases, the opinion synthesized by the group is used to set precedent for policy and also to meter out punitive measures as the Committee deems appropriate. Many pages refer to this method of creating opinion "consensus," although unlike true consensus, there is no need for agreement. True consensus implies reaching terms with which all parties are content. Wikipedian opinions are fully formed, and represent all participants to some extent, but do not necessarily address the concerns and grievances brought forth by all parties.
As with all groups governed by process, there is corruption, mostly in the second tier but also in the lower tier to a lesser extent. As usual, it is impossible to determine the level of corruption present in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy because any trait of corruption belonging to a majority of the upper tiers will eventually become policy and will then become part of the regular process.
All that I have written is pretty much accurate as my perception of the "government" around here. It's not democracy, and it's not Communism. - Corbin Be excellent 05:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Pardon the spelling, didn't bother to check it but should there be a controversy part of this article? I know many articles has so why not give this one too? 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

About half the article consists of crticism. In fact, there is another entire article outlining the Criticism of Wikipedia. --TantalumTelluride 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Count

Does this include pages that merely redirect to another page? If so, it seems like the number of articles would be grossly inflated. The Ungovernable Force 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Fredrik Johansson 23:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Inserting Pictures

Does anyone know how to insert a picture onto a page, one that is from a different source other than wikipedia? answer me on my talk page Much appreciated. Max.pwnage 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't use images unless they are uploaded on Wikipedia or Commons. So you'd upload it first to use it. --Optichan 20:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Highest Quality?

I really only discovered Wikipedia a few weeks ago while looking for information on some research I was carrying out. I was impressed enough to start browsing on regular basis, and started to carry out some editing during my sleepless hours. It was then that I began to uncover some serious problems. I note that the mission statement is that Wikipedia aims to create an encyclopedia of 'the highest quailty'. If this is the case then I regret to report that it is a singular failure. My own area of expertise is history, particularly the history of Scotland. I have discovered in the course of my wanderings over these pages a quite enormous number-and I really do have to stress enormous-of simple errors of both fact and interpretation. Much of the writing, moreover, is of an abysmally poor quality, unacceptable even in a schoolboy essay. The multi-editing makes this even worse, giving the tone, as I have said elsewhere, of items cobbled together by some sub-committee of the Writer's Union in Stalin's Russia. More than this Wikipedia seems to attract people not deliberately malevolent-though there are plenty of those-but encased in ignorant preconceptions of the worst kind. My own editing I consider to be fairly neutral, designed, for the most part, simply to clarify points of fact. I always provide an explanation in the relevent talk page. However, what I have done has been reverted on a number of occasions without explanation. In particular, I would refer those who are interested to the entry on the ancient alliance between France and Scotland-the Auld Alliance. The piece as it stands is atrocious in its banality and inaccuracy. A fuller account of my reasons for this conclusion can be found on the talk page. It might be said that editing and correcting will help to refine and improve; but it in practice it only makes things even worse. I have enough knowledge to be able to recognize the errors in areas with which I am familiar. What about those areas that are new to me; how much misinformation is being put across in the guise of encyclopedic authority? For me Wikipedia is now little more than a source of amusement. As a research tool it is practically worthless, and I would ask other people to take note of this.

I am sorry to sound so negative because I approve of the concept of a free encyclopedia, covering all aspects of the human endevour. But as it stands at present it is not working. Rcpaterson 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading about the criticism of Wikipedia. You are not the first to express this concern. --Optichan 16:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion page?

Can i ask, is there a article that shows what new features etc is coming to wikipedia or something like that?

Like are there new things comong to wiki?

Pece Kocovski 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean the mediawiki software. In which case try their website.Geni 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of editors?

I'd like to see figures on the number of editors, and the number of active and very editors (however that's defined - e.g. the number that have made an edit in the last month, and those that have made more than 100 edits - might have to count bots separately to get a clearer picture.) --03:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

is ginf a word?

the deffinition of it is "A word that confuses small children." Purel is ginff get to me on if ginf is a real word HELP!!!!!!!

A little About Anne Frank

In 1945,close to the end of World War2,Anne Frank died at age 15.She was the kind of girl who love to have fun and she was more to boyfriends than work..She had sleepovers,flirted,and was funny...

                        If you want to know more about Anne Frank read     Memories of Anne Frank