Wikipedia talk:About/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Downloading the English version of Wikipedia?

Kind regards from France! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.83.164.5 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can . Because the English Wikpedia is so big, many dump attempts fail or are incomplete - therefore the English Wikipedia dumps are not released often. Graham87 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Reputation?

Among many people that I have talked to, seems to have a bad reputation as being a no-good source of information. Is there any reason why this is? Is this a common attitude toward Wikipedia and more importantly, what should I think about the accuracy, usefulness, etc of Wikipedia? NathanKP 15:13, 27 September 2007

It doesn't have a bad reputation. Many of people worry that the information may not be correct. If you check the sources are real, and read them through too where possible, then the material is plausible and safe. Bsutcliffe 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not use wikipedia for medical/legal advice, and you should be fine. I almost always use Wikipedia as a first go-to and quick reference. I almost always ignore if I want to go into a subject in more depth or more reliability. There are much better resources for in depth research: Google Scholar and its bibliographies are probably the single best Internet resource I've found for general academic stuff. And, if you have access to a university, it's all free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.220.225 (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A venerable tradition – fighting on the side of the weak against those in power

Wikipedia is arguably today’s most ambitious project for the democratization of knowledge and social recognition. It is, therefore, of fundamental importance that the worth and value of individual achievements, as for instance contributions to science, should not be judged by the individuals concerned or their supporters but by a general public. However, this principle is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. Unfortunately, even Wikipedia still tends to benefit the strong and to harm the weak, thus leading to results very much in contradiction to what this encyclopedia really wants. Take, for instance, descriptions of individual scientists and their achievements in Germany. Some ten years ago, most German luminaries of higher or lesser rank found it beneath their professional dignity even to be mentioned in Wikipedia. However, things have radically changed since then. Now it is almost a point of ambition and amour propre to be present on the Internet. The reason is perhaps not so palatable. Old power structures tend to be reaffirmed. Even if professors and scientists aren’t personally responsible for the texts representing their lives and achievements, they normally have a keen eye on what is written about them by their collegues or students. What is more important, in the resulting tit-for-tat neither of these will be so ill-advised as to write anything disparaging. But now consider the case of those who dare to doubt received opinions or otherwise diverge from the mainstream. They cannot rely on any helpful tit-for-tat. So they are easy prey for anybody who just delights in casting doubt upon their achievements even if these may well - and often do - represent the coming paradigm. Everybody familiar with Thomas S. Kuhn’s work on the history of science knows what I mean. Wikipedia’s otherwise very sound principle of democratic control is therefore bound to be seriously misused by those in intellectual power. In-group individuals will always guarantee rather positive self-representation for themselves while they may even derive fun from harming those outside. Hence, my proposal which combines the uninfringeable principle of democratic control with a safeguard against its misuse. If so wished, allow evaluation of living personalities (in science, art, politics etc.) to be present on two different planes. What is normally to be seen corresponds to what is now to be seen – namely what others have to say about some person and its work. However, if the person concerned should feel that his or her achievements are misrepresented, there should be something like a small hand at the end of the text. When you click it you see an alternative text representing the self-evaluation of this person. In typical in-group evaluations such alternative representation will neither be sought for nor deemed necessary – typical in-group evaluations are nothing else than self-representations. In these cases the text is already shaped so as to please the person in question. But outsiders will greatly benefit from this device. If they were unjustly treated, they are given the chance to make their voice heard. If, however, it turns out that they suffered from personal conceit and delusion, the risk of becoming ridiculous is only theirs. In any case, Wikipedia would become more equitable to those outside power structures. It would become more favorable to those who are defenseless. Of course, these entries must be protected from editing. Signed: Gero Jenner (GJenner) 6.10.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GJenner (talk • contribs) 09:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Just wondering, how do they catch vandalism? Does someone just have to happen to be on that page and see it? --Georgethedecider 05:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vandalism #How to spot vandalism. Basically through recent changes patrol and by using the watchlist. I have occasionally found vandalism while just browsing though. Graham87 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You could also install several tools to help track vandalism. People generally don't stumble upon it, as Wikipedia is so big. Ahahaha, it's me, Rahk_EX 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this claim verifiable?

I was intrigued by the claim in this article that studies have shown that wikipedia is broadly as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. However, I couldn't find any mention of this assertion in the article that is cited as the source of this claim. Does anyone know why?

198.103.104.12 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Leslie

This isn't an article, just an "about" page for the website, so it's not subject to the policy of requiring a source for all factual claims. We do, however, have an article about Wikipedia, located simply at Wikipedia, which cites studies that have been conducted on Wikipedia's reliability – Qxz 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The study in question was done by Nature. ffm ✎talk 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But it was a while back and only based on a few hundred articles: time to move on I think. --BozMo talk 12:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia

How about a section on how to correctly reference wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.7.248.137 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

....me thinks that it's a website, so you would reference it as a website.

agree with above, but really, you shouldn't be citing wikipedia anyway. It's useful and all for background knowledge, but information is not necessarily accurate. 198.103.104.12 12:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, anything that can be studied can be cited. Wikipedia can be a source of information as it is or it can be an object of study as it is. Just remember the golden rule of citing internet material: INCLUDE THE TIME AND DATE OF PERUSAL. Internet content can change rapidly, but with the time and date the material becomes checkable even if it has changed afterwards. In that respect Wikipedia is certainly more reliable than any arbitrary web page that you would otherwise trust.

Reliable

I know that anyone who wants to can edit Wikipedia. How tight is the security for making sure all info coming in is reliable? Is there a system making sure all of Wikipedia's facts are true? Is everything really checked to make sure it's good? 68.10.115.77 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Student

All the checking is done by us normal users. If you really wanted to (don't, by the way, :P) you could pick any random page (try the Random article button on the left sidebar) and add any old crap. It could stay there for weeks. But the chances are, that pages will be in someone's watchlist, or another person will be patrolling Recent Changes (see the Recent Changes list here) - they'll see your edit, identify it as vandalism and revert it. If you need any more help, or information for a research project, post a new message on my talk page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have found stems from those who "watch" pages. A personal experience has proven that even though these self proclaimed "watchdogs" look to revert "any old crap," they use their biases, not Wikipedia rules to do so. When challenged, they seek out other "watchdogs" in their cliquish circle of friends to affirm their biases, ignoring Wikipedia rules entirely. This is a real issue of credibility that I believe makes Wikipedia an unreliable resource. DaVoice 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Being a new user, I fight only obvious vandalism. Say someone replaced a page with profane words, I would simply revert it, no questions asked. I leave the more trivial things to the more experienced users. Adding "Go fuck yourself" to a page can obviously be noted to be vandalism, I judge this with my common sense, which, of course, is common. Ahahaha, it's me, Rahk_EX 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahahaha, it's me, Rahk_EX You state you are a new user, you then state that you fight vandalism...why is it that you consider others' use of/revert others when they write "Go .... yourself" but add it here as your comment? This is nothing more than vandalism, perpetrated by you. Your comments are a perfect example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. DaVoice 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Because here it's relevant to the discussion, but on say, Tony Blair's page, it isn't at all?

science

What qualifcations are needed to work at cadburys, bmw, a school and alton towers? please write back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.14.15 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

You're probably better off asking at the Reference desk, or asking the companies themselves - ask your school headmaster, send an email to Cadbury's (contact details for Cadbury's career advisors here), contact BMW by email or letter, and maybe look round Alton Towers' website. I'd guess that (from least qualifications needed to most) the order would be: Alton Towers, BMW, Cadbury's, a school - although what job you would do in that company would make a big difference. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List of overviews

I followed the link called Overviews on the top of the Main page and got this About page. Thus the additional reference to List of overviews. --Ancheta Wis 10:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia!

Huh? Aaron Bowen 10:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how to even find the discussion bulletin board on here, so I'm going to ask here. Is there anyway to change the white background to black and the text from black to white in a skin? I ask because all the white in wikipedia is blinding and I'd like it to be easier to read. I'm getting migraines from all the white!

My email is fakefubusmaximus@hotmail.com if you can help me out.

No so stop asking whore

    I don't think "Whore" was a necessary addition to your answer.

Somebody tell me, please

I suspect with great disappointment that too many articles have been TRANSLATED FROM, (TO ENGLISH), OTHER LANGUAGES BY SOME VILE AUTOMATED SYSTEM; read: CANNOT DO IT, CANNOT DO IT!!, resulting in the reduction of the language's rich idomatic, (and most difficult element to master coming from other languages), potential unto drip. Or, that persons unequipped by way of English as a sideline author them. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisum.ili.dilm (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dire Issue concerning the following Line

"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world."

I have an issue with the term "volunteers," that many people may also have.

The term "volunteer" may imply several negative aspects that would not be beneficial for Wikipedia.

• Viewers may perceive that since the work is being done by "volunteer," it must be of low-quality, even though they may be mistaken. The reality is that they are not, but that is not what we want them to believe (don't tell them).
• "Volunteer" tends to be seen as people who have nothing better to do with their time.
• We gain the feeling that they're old and lonely people. Young people will run from anything associated with the elderly.
• The word "volunteer" doesn't really conjure up any sort of merit.

l;kj

• And so much more.

In an hopeless effort to try to make wikipedia better (I estimate at least 2 centuries), I recommend the following replacement terms, substituting "volunteer," as well as my reasons for doing so.

• Diligent Servant: It shows that they are hard-working and should feel proud of it, never questioning anything, like very productive slaves. The caps are important.
• Individuals: They stand boldly.
• Supreme members of our global economy: They are supreme for the simple fact that they contribute to wikipedia.. and because they don't care about money (it being the root of all evil and all) ..in our global economy.
• Wikipedian: Undying persuasive notion of being one of us. Are you a Wikipedian? Are a member, a part of our world? Be one of us! You Wikipedia (smiley face)!

To illustrate, let's use Wikipedian. Result: "In the vibrant, yet volatile and ever-expanding society of Wikipedia, great Wikipedians, such as (..whoever you want to give fame) and (..whoever looks good), from every sector of the globe strive together as a team to bring the only free source of information that will matter in years to come."

..or something like that.

Oh yes, using certain words, we should also link to various articles (The rest of wikipedia that is not FA) to showcase that the writing was merely rhetoric and marketing, which are very important to give wikipedia a better image.

Purely Sarcastic Note: The revert wars are the most productive things I have seen from wikipedia...

For clarification purposes, the next two points are not sarcastic: One more thing, change "About us" to "Vision, Mission, & Values" since I honestly believe they have something going for them.

Another Note: The lists and comparison charts you have here at wiki are one of the main reason I come here. 162.83.182.61

In the End

I believe Wikipedia should be a sort of homing beacon to teleport people to the best sources on the web.

• Point the case: Why the hell or how the hell is it productive to rewrite everything (in different words) when somebody can just go to the appropriate sources? 162.83.182.61

Those sources might be copyrighted, so you can't redistribute them or include them in your own publications. Also, they aren't as likely to be unbiased. ←Ben^B4 00:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In practice, Google is usually better because of Pagerank. Wikipedia's external links are often good when they are added, but things change fast on the web. About 10% of Wikipedia's external links don't work at all. News stories in particular tend to turn in to dead links, organizations of all types reorganize their web sites very often, people switch ISPs, etc. ←Ben^B4 00:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GDFL

Maybe it's a mistake for Wikipedia to use GNU as a licensing standard. Maybe we should shift to Creative Commons as a licensing scheme in case of items where it's hard to adhere to the GDFL standards. 204.52.215.107 01:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We only use GFDL for article (and other page) text. Media (images, sound files, videos etc) are accepted in several licenses including GFDL and Creative Commons. While personally, I'm not convinced GFDL was the best choice it's too late now to change things. Nil Einne 13:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

bibliography

it would be really great if you had a quick reference on the bottom of your page. this would greatly help with referencing in assingments etc...

thnx=)

On articles you can click the "Cite this article" link in the sidebar to bring up a selection of citation formats. The link doesn't appear for this page because it isn't one of the encyclopedia articles, it's just an information page about Wikipedia. There is also an encyclopedic article about Wikipedia, here – Gurch 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Although, really, you shouldn't be citing Wikipedia for assignments. ^^ Generally not liked by teachers. It's great for quick researching or explanation of a topic, but for a scholarly source...not recommended. 24.16.140.208 (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

Here's an interesting question for anyone out there: is Wikipedia censored in other countries (i. e. China, Cuba, North Korea)? I'm not being politically prejudiced; I'm just wondering if Wikipedia has been banned in countries with stricter rules. Wikiisawesome 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Graham87 11:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is blocked in mainland china, however, using anonymous internet a user can bypass the block and access Wikipedia. Vittore Russo 18:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism does not include misguided edits in good faith

This page should be altered to make it consistent with the official Wikipedia policy on Vandalism. Quoting that page:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

Hence this introduction page should be reviewed, and most of the references to "vandalism" or "vandal" should be replaced by a more appropriate term, such as degradation or distortion or "misguided edit". This is also more friendly to newcomers. I am still very new to Wikipedia, so I am reluctant to be so bold as to edit the whole introduction without making a comment here first. -- Duae Quartunciae 03:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead to edit the main page a bit, to remove a reference to vandalism in one context where it was not needed, imo, and to extend an "etc" with other forms of distortion that can arise. Here are the changes applied. (diff) -- Duae Quartunciae 23:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen many users claiming to be against vandalism, but there are many blocks carried out by them with no rights for the blocked person to appeal from. Wikipedia claims to have the email response system, but some administrators do not display their own emails. thus, the blocked users have to wait till the end of the block, then realise that there is another block in which the blocked latter did not carry out any offence to do with Wikipedia. Some have even visited Wikipedia for the first time! can any administrator reply? Respond, please?

I'm not an administrator, but I think I can help. Firstly, though the administrators don't publish their e-mail because of spambots, they are required to have a confirmed e-mail address, meaning logged in users can send them an e-mail by clicking on a link in the tool box (bottom left corner). Secondly, any user (IP or registered) can put Template:Unblock on their talk page (you can still edit your own talk page, even if you're blocked) and a different administrator will be along shortly to review the block. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In reference to Puchiko's edit, I personally need to bring up a few points:

I feel that the use of the Template is not explained well. if there were to be a detailed explanation or instruction page that the public is able to access so that they are able to successfully unblock the block, it would be a much better way in communicating towards amateur users of the internet or the PC.

I would also like to refer to the fact that KnowledgeOfSelf, an administrator, has no email stated on the profile page. I beg to differ from Puchiko as there is no confirmed e-mail address after clicking on "Contact administrator". My nephew and I managed to create an account at an internet cafe but to no avail, there was no sign of the email address of the administrator, even a link. I'm glad that Puchiko has given me some way to really get to know the real world in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomgagaga (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles

A major issue of Wikipedia is with the volunteers, you are asking them to weigh the importance of an article when they in fact have no knowledge of the subject material and are completely unqualified to make such a judgement. A recent article, 'Soldiers of the cross - colorado', which was a racist organization and referenced by other articles was deleted by a volunteer because it is insignificant. The ultimate reasoning he came to was, 'I am only following orders' in the form of, 'I am only following the guidelines'.

BTW, the organization is written about in the book, 'The Encyclopedia of White Power', one of the premier books on white rqacism in America. That is what made this person's comment all the more humerous, that it is insignificant.

Unfortunately, I do not know what the solution to it is but explains a lot as to why there are so many holes in the content of the wikipedia.65.87.185.73 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Update, the volunteer ultimately made two decisions, this person is a troll and the subject material is insignificant. So, one recommendation would be to have someone check if these guys are actually doing their job.65.87.185.73 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion of the page wikipedia:about. Try the steps listed in dispute resolution. Graham87 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A venerable tradition – fighting on the side of the weak against those in power

Wikipedia is arguably today’s most ambitious project for the democratization of knowledge and social recognition. It is, therefore, of fundamental importance that the worth and value of individual achievements, as for instance contributions to science, should not be judged by the individuals concerned or their supporters but by a general public. However, this principle is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. Unfortunately, even Wikipedia still tends to benefit the strong and to harm the weak, thus leading to results very much in contradiction to what this encyclopedia really wants. Take, for instance, descriptions of individual scientists and their achievements in Germany. Some ten years ago, most German luminaries of higher or lesser rank found it beneath their professional dignity even to be mentioned in Wikipedia. However, things have radically changed since then. Now it is almost a point of ambition and amour propre to be present on the Internet. The reason is perhaps not so palatable. Old power structures tend to be reaffirmed. Even if professors and scientists aren’t personally responsible for the texts representing their lives and achievements, they normally have a keen eye on what is written about them by their collegues or students. What is more important, in the resulting tit-for-tat neither of these will be so ill-advised as to write anything disparaging. But now consider the case of those who dare to doubt received opinions or otherwise diverge from the mainstream. They cannot rely on any helpful tit-for-tat. So they are easy prey for anybody who just delights in casting doubt upon their achievements even if these may well - and often do - represent the coming paradigm. Everybody familiar with Thomas S. Kuhn’s work on the history of science knows what I mean. Wikipedia’s otherwise very sound principle of democratic control is therefore bound to be seriously misused by those in intellectual power. In-group individuals will always guarantee rather positive self-representation for themselves while they may even derive fun from harming those outside. Hence, my proposal which combines the uninfringeable principle of democratic control with a safeguard against its misuse. If so wished, allow evaluation of living personalities (in science, art, politics etc.) to be present on two different planes. What is normally to be seen corresponds to what is now to be seen – namely what others have to say about some person and its work. However, if the person concerned should feel that his or her achievements are misrepresented, there should be something like a small hand at the end of the text. When you click it you see an alternative text representing the self-evaluation of this person. In typical in-group evaluations such alternative representation will neither be sought for nor deemed necessary – typical in-group evaluations are nothing else than self-representations. In these cases the text is already shaped so as to please the person in question. But outsiders will greatly benefit from this device. If they were unjustly treated, they are given the chance to make their voice heard. If, however, it turns out that they suffered from personal conceit and delusion, the risk of becoming ridiculous is only theirs. In any case, Wikipedia would become more equitable to those outside power structures. It would become more favorable to those who are defenseless. Of course, these entries must be protected from editing. Signed Gero Jenner (GJenner) 6.10.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GJenner (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

IMPROVMENT IN TIS HELPLINE

WIKIPEDIA TALK ABUT (COMMENT)GIVE THE TOPIC CLEARLY FOR STUDENT GUDIANCE &TRY EASY LANGUAE FOR STUDENT GUDINACE FOR INTRUCTION FOR STUDENT RELATED TO COMPUTER GRAPHICS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.104.8 (talk) 15:53, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

What?76.110.82.251 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC) What are you trying to say?o_O Im confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthJojo199 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So strict

I love Wikipedia, its one of my top 5 sites, but don't you hate how there are so many rules that you have to file through when you post, there is more than a 50% chance it will be deleted? e.g. "What Wikipedia is not", etc, there are an infinite number of pages telling you the various Wikipedia guidelines. this includes the wikipedia cronies who wander around telling you what you wrote is not in the "spirit" of wikipedia, them delete, renovate, or move what you wrote. Come on! I think of Wikipedia as a simple, user-generated encyclopedia that I can always go to. But the more I explore, the more specifications and rules I find, and this can be quite discouraging, how goddamn strict it is. I do understand that consistency in articles is good and many of the changes the so-called experts make are for the good of the articles. But I feel that Wikipedia has gone over-the top, and I say this: Wikipedia, I love you, but please stick to simplicity. Lose all the guidelines.

Does anyone follow me? Agree? Disagree? Know where else I can post this? Thanks. --Gingerbreadmann 03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:About, per WP:TALK. (Just kidding.) You might get a better response if you post to WP:VPP. ←Ben^B4 03:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you intend to improve the article, try to improve and include rather than remove, reference any outlandish claims, and stay away from the real controversial stuff, you will not be reverted. Policy exists to allow experienced editors that are in the right during a dispute to justify their cause, or to settle complex matters that could turn into major dramas if not kept in check. You do not need to know every policy and guideline to contribute, just the spirit of the community. aliasd·U·T 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Darn, I forgot to mention Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. ←Ben^B4 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Don't take reverts as "you're doing it wrong", but instead as someone taking the time to teach you more about WP. I can only imagine the eye roll from the guy who reverted my adding cat:living people to my user page ;) Anthonypetre 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC) (and I still never remember to sign my comments on the first edit)

lol, thanks ben. Alias, you're definitely speaking Wikipedian. That's what I mean in that post. I appreciate your help, but you're talking the talk I just ranted about. Thanks Anthony, you understand me too. I'll post it to VPP. thanks again. --Gingerbreadmann 01:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

I feel the opening sentence of this should be "You're in it". What does everyone else think? 82.69.28.55 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually web sites' "About" / "About Us" sections do not include that. ←Ben^B4 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Kids?

Just a thought maybe you guys should make a wikikids or something just so everything isnt in 'adult words' and that they can understand everything.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. People can fork Wikipedia and remove content they find objectionable, if they like. It takes a fair amount of technical knowledge to do so. ←Ben^B4 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Simple English wikipedia although it isn't censored either and primarily targets adults without a good English level. However as its name suggests, it uses a much smaller vocabulary so it should be fine if your concern it 'adult words' that are too hard to understand Nil Einne 13:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Click here if you find a word on Wikipedia in which you do not understand. Cyclonenim (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, I wish there was a "Bullshit" template...

...really, I do. There is so much completely stupid stuff in Wikipedia. Not even the "doesn't know any better" kind of crap you can find in every physics textbook existant, rather the "damn, how can anybody be THIS STUPID" kind of bullshit. Sometimes, I wonder if a free encyclopedia can actually work, with everybody, REALLY everybody, just inserting whatever triviality comes to mind at any moment, trying to push whatever agenda they might have and just being so utterly braindead. At times like this, I wish there was an unremovable "This article might contain complete bullshit" template you could apply to articles, just so other people would be warned not to believe everything they read on this site.

Sorry for ranting, Anonymous User -84.186.177.142 02:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I being only 13 beleive that wiki should be open to children besause technology is moving so quickly that most work in school will be done on computers and as wiki is very useful I think its only right thatkids to use but with parental control on.

Terrorist

We can all agree this word is deragatory. If the word terrorist is to be used correctly why dont we see it by names such as Stalin and the government he ran. In the colonial period the colonists called the colonized who fought against them terrorists, who is the bigger terrorist here, the colonizers or those that defend themselves? This word is really opinionated since someones terrorist might be considered someone else a group that stands for justice, and this word should not be even used unless the borders of which the colonizers setup is removed, especially after they did soo much damage to world history and humanity in general. Just for the intire wikipedia, we are not to show any way favoritism to one side, so lets report facts of what has happened and confirmed rather then putting titles such as terrorists on one onther, since this supposed to show only facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic of History (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps words such as "dictator" and "criminal" should not be used either for the sake of objectivity. In fact maybe it's time to recognize that even the KKK are a legitimate religious organization, innocently attempting to spread "the word of God"... I sincerely hope you're not an editor on this site. Dvyjns (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you start a new article

can't fine out even after reading around before signing up Xme (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

put the intended article's title in search and hit go. if it doesn't exists a doesn't exist page will appear. click the red create this page link (though you might want to read the ohter links first) --Mongreilf (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

About Wikipedia Pillars

I joined to Wikipedia in October this year. My very first step was to read the rules called the 'Wikipedia Pillars'. When trying to print all relevant text - I came to an enormous number of pages - 207. To be more precise - all text relevant to the first pillar counts 96 pages, the second pillar - 14 pages, the third - 44, the fourth - 43, and the fift one 10. Isn't an enormous amount of the text just to define the basic editorial principles of an Internet publication?

Also, what makes me confused is the very idea of free content: Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. In any human activity that requires a level of knowledge - it is hard to imagine that someone's work might be disrespected this way and that such a disrespect might be an editorial rule.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing Trend

Is Wikipedia trying to make itself over for greater "respectability"? Is it trying to be more authoritative and scholarly? The effort will fail unless Wikipedia stops allowing anybody to edit it. Or if a select group of professors censors everything written.

That is not the nature of the beast. Wikipedia is a record of collective memory not a definitive authority. Too many people have mistaken its possibilities and purpose -- including, it seems, those respoonsible for running the site. They're fighting a losing battle because this beast cannot be tamed without strangling it.

So allow more lists -- they make the connections between topics that research requires. Put trivia sections back -- they make topics more memorable, and that is very important to teachers. Include more cultural references -- they relate old topics to new ones. Loosen up the style restrictions -- trying to make some topics encyclopedia makes them dull and full of abstruse jargon.

But mostly just let Wikipeda be Wikipedia. It isn't Britannica and never will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.113.78 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Smibble-muffins

I once heard that somethin called smibble-muffins was actually wikipedia. can anyone confirm this? Glopsodash (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamborghini21 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Smibble-muffins&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurch (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for future enhancement

PLEASE consider adding some kind of public forum to Wikipedia, perhaps something similar to PHPBB or vBulletin. The "discussion" page is lacking. There is no way to thread discussions! PLEASE, this would be a major improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.147.231 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What is it with all of the Michigan Wolverine players ending up in Featured Content?

Stop with the Michigan Wolverine football players ending up in the featured content! It was funny for about 5 seconds, but now it's just boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cingetorix (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

==

Bomis unreferenced

In the "Wikipedia talk:About" project page, Wikipedia History section, the paragraph beginning "There was considerable resistance ...", goes on to mention:

"The bandwidth and server (in San Diego) were donated by Wales. Other current and past Bomis employees who have worked on the project include Tim Shell, one of the co-founders of Bomis and its current CEO, and programmer Jason Richey."

The implication is that Wales was a Bomis employee.

But why is Bomis mentioned? Marketing? To publicize their employees? Historical reasons? Trivia?

Bomis is nowhere else referenced in the page. Removing the entire Bomis sentence improves the clarity and understanding of the paragraph and section.

This paragraph needs a direct statement to justify the inclusion of the Bomis sentence. I hesitate to remove the sentence. Presumably, this is a well-traveled page. Was there a reason for this sentence that escapes me?

Was this page generated by an incorrect, automatic edit, from a more comprehensive source page?

SalineBrain (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version?

I'm requesting a spoken version of this article, as I think it'd be a useful one to have for anybody visually impaired or anyone else who cannot utilise Wikipedia's textual versions. I have no working microphone, so I am unable to record a version, so the offer is open to anyone else to carry it out. Thanks. Cyclonenim (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea; I'll raise this on the talk page of WP:SPOKEN. I'll try to do one myself, but not sure if I will have time in the short-term. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a request template to the top of this talk page, to ensure it is featured in the "Requested Spoken Articles" category. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad Information

I think that people who think Wikipedia has bad information have never gone to Wikipedia. Yes, there are a few bad apples who edit anything they want, 95% of information is referenced and verifiable. People just don't know that because they've never been to Wikipedia.Toolazy21 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

vincent van gough

who is vincent van gough what does he write and who is he illustrated by????????????????/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran-111 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the article Vincent van Gogh. It has all the information you need. It begins: Vincent Willem van Gogh (30 March 1853 – 29 July 1890) was a Dutch Post-Impressionist artist. His paintings and drawings include some of the world's best known, most popular and most expensive pieces. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

wiki mobile?

In view of the relatively new, but continuing and increasing use of mobile phones, iPhones, BlackBerries, and the like to access internet information (OK, I am one of the users), it would be *really nice* if there were a mobile-access-adapted version of Wikipedia. It would also be really nice if some thought were given to what the access screens would look like on such a device (this is not always the case, I must say).

Just food for thoughht, along the lines of a request for Voice Wiki, I guess.

(If this already exists, it is not obvious from anywhere on the regular web site.)

--98.226.177.147 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC) February 3, 2008, 20:45 GMT -5 yo sup dog!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.77.180 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! The website you're looking for is en.wap.wikipedia.org. For more information you can consult Wikipedia:WAP access but I think you're better off just checking out the site itself. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4