Wikipedia talk:About

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please do not post your requests or questions on this page. You can ask all kinds of questions about using Wikipedia at the Help desk or the Teahouse. At the Reference Desk you can ask questions about any topic. Volunteers will respond to your questions as soon as possible.

Editing by new and anonymous editors has been disabled on this page.
Comments by those editors can be left on a sub-page by following the link below:
Click here to go to the sub-page for new and anonymous users

the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Simple thing about Wikipedia.

It is a great wiki/site. Its a wiki/site where people can share their knowledge with other people.

Agree Mtemar (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Constant corrections

Wikipedia is a great idea a way of tapping the worlds knowledge on countless subjects. But it is spoilt by too many vandals, busy bodies and no-it-alls. I am relatively inexperienced when it comes to writing these articles and it takes me an age to do so. I don't mind my English or formatting of articles being corrected so they conform to 'Wiki' standards. But I have lost the will for further contributions, as I have neither the time nor inclination to constantly correct factual errors, or argue about references with people who 'think' they know what they are talking about.

There was a long debate over the reliability of Ancestry sources, which I was asked to contribute, sorry I have a life, the debate was long winded, petty and trivial, there were too many people passing comments on things they don't understand. Yes there are errors in census returns, the 1841-1901 were filled in by an enumerator, however the 1911 census [primary source] was filled in by the head of the household [how many of our ancestors were fully literate?] and so it too contains mistakes. Just like there are in BMD certificates, how many illegitimate brides and grooms gained fathers, or married when they were supposedly single or widows [but were still married], names spelt wrong or swapped around and even wrong/conflicting dates, birth certificate says one date, death certificate another! BUT these are just as reliable as newspaper articles or books and biographies, its not like they don't make mistakes or offer conflicting information or go on to repeat the same mistakes in new articles. To prove relationships a family tree is the only thing we can reference sometimes. The GRO [a secondary source] offers a reference in order to obtain the certificates which you couldn't upload to WIKI as they would be copyrighted. I am a keen and experienced family historian and have a few 'notable' distant cousins in my tree for which I have provided facts/information to their biographies on WIKI. However facts keep getting changed and/or references removed, by people who haven't got a clue, especially on working out what is a bad or good family tree [more than one primary source to support the information] Suggest otherwise how you can prove family links/knowledge without the aid of these sources? OR how for example the family-tree for the Royal family on Wiki is acceptable but others aren't.

The article on Dennis HIRD is a case in point. Yes he is a distant cousin to me [1st cousin 3 x removed to be precise] he died 50 years before I was born, he was not known to me, my family or my grandmother [they were 1st cousins once removed]. I have been accused of expressing a bias [I wrote the article based on the facts I found and I referenced them]. I came by my knowledge after extensively researching HIRD for 10 + years. I have looked at countless newspaper articles, books, biographies, letters on him and by him and backed up these facts with census returns and BMD certificates. So I think I am a 'bit' of an expert on his life, yet the facts keep getting changed or references to his family discounted. He is also included in a chapter of a book I had published on his family [freely available on the internet and royalty free] This was written using the exact references/information as I had used for the WIKI article, BUT the book [a secondary source] is OK for reference purposes BUT some of the primary reference material isn't!

I would have liked to have added more facts, information and photographs to the numerous articles on here, to which I could have contributed further. However life is too short to waste it constantly correcting the same things, or spent on petty arguments.

MBorrill (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A misspelled word

This: "non-specialists" is misspelled. The word is "nonspecialists". Please correct this spelling.
In common nouns and common adjectives, the prefix "non" is never hyphenated onto anything, and we can find 100 correct examples. Here are a few: nonbeliever, nonconductor, nonfunctional, nongermaine, nonhuman, nonliving, nonmaterial, nonmetal, nonoptimal, nonparticipant, nonrural, nonsense, and nonverbal. (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - WP:HYPHEN seems to indicate that for this usage, this is correct, also wikt:nonspecialist. It doesn't seem to be one of the exceptions listed at WP:HYPHEN. Thank you. Begoontalk 02:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

for reference: - see also Wikipedia talk:About/New and anonymous editors#A misspelled word.

Reader feedback: Make the left hand side link... posted this comment on 10 July 2013 (view all feedback).

Make the left hand side links more eye catching. Or maybe run a little banner some time saying that this info is available, maybe saying something like "Interested in how wiki works? links on the left provide in depth explanations/information". I've always wondered and never even thought to look at the left hand side to read what was listed there because it never caught my attention and I just assumed it was for editors or someone other than me. I'm always using wiki focusing on the info I want so my line of vision is on the center of the page not browsing around the site but I would have read this a lot sooner if it was brought to my attention that this information is available. It's embarrassing to me that I didn't know this information was available and that I never even looked for it. I even commented on the fundraiser feedback page that it "should" be on wiki. Maybe it should be part of the wording of the fundraiser so people can assess the value of the information they receive but this page does brings attention to potential vandalism and false info so maybe it would hurt the fundraiser for those who believe the information is totally reliable.

Any thoughts?

BV talk 23:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback

It seems that a majority of people clicking on the link "About Wikipedia" are actually looking for contact information (phone # or e-mail), where to donate and about Jimbo Wales. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimers link

Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer, I would like to suggest adding a Disclaimers link at the end of the navigation bar at the top of the About page. It would add very little clutter and would give our disclaimers greater visibility.--agr (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What I am suggesting requires changing a template which may be overkill. Instead I'm adding a mention to the end of the intro.--agr (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)