Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Who are the competitors of Wikipedia?

Or does Wikipedia currently hold a monopoly on web based knowledge?

-G

Youtube does pretty good.

-C

Wikipedia Logo

I notice that the Wikipedia Logo looks rather jaggy, and I'd like to have a crack at fixing it. But, the logo itself doesn't seem to be an entry that is editable (probably for a good reason); I'd still like to contribute though. Tyler 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Motion to unlock

I point out the Wikipedia policy on locking here:

Semi-protection should not be used ... In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. To prohibit anonymous editing in general.

There is clearly a lot of bias, mainly by registered users hello hahahaha Wikipedia sound better than it is) on this page. As an example: This page makes reference to two scholary articles hardly of worthy reference, yet fails to note the Larry Sagner (Cofounder of Wikipedia) has recently been quoted to describe Wikipedia as "often factually inaccurate" and "broken beyond repair", this at least hit national TV News in the UK. LaudanumCoda 03:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, entire klans protect their falsehoods by continuously reverting articles to their former inaccurate states. The perpetrators (read: bigots) continue to disregard reputable source material in favor of one source that incorrectly or fictitiously promote a very racist/ biased point of view. One small edit and the klan strikes en masse to ensure that no one is lead to legitimate (mit.edu, the Smithsonian, the Federal Highway Administration, NASA, et al) sources. Rather these ignorami revert to one page www33.brinkster.com. Following that through the search and any user can see that those references are designed to discredit any person of African descent. Bfritzen 8:35 May 13, 2007

"Meta"

BUBBA Thumperward, your description of certain parts of the article as "meta-advertising" puzzles me. You removed from the introduction a simple sentence outlining Wikipedia's core content policies, which is entirely relevant to the subject of the article, and fits with the guidelines that state that the lead section should summarize the rest of the article. The references to the project pages are there simply to confirm their existence — our policies don't allow unsourced statements in articles, and especially in an article such as this one we should be particularly careful to source every statement. Stating that "Wikipedia has a policy on such-and-such" is all very well, but while we as contributors know it's true, the reader may not. Proof that this is in fact the case, and that we haven't just made it up, is therefore required — just as it would be if we were discussing, say, company policy in an article about a corporation. We can't let the fact that we are Wikipedia detract from the need to source statements – Qxz 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to endlessly point out random Wikipedia policy pages in the introduction in order to make this point. The intro is overly-long as it is, and Wikipedia's internal policies need only be referred to with a single ref: not padded out with a half-dozen policy links. Even the article body goes into such excruciating detail over this that it reads like a site map at points.

As for the "information may be retrieved by..." section, such banal commentary doesn't belong in the article at all. I mean, wow, a website can be searched by visiting a search engine. Categories bear a note in the organisation section in the article body, but not in the intro.

I'm planning on removing these again, as part of a larger mission to reduce this article to a length which makes it readable. There's no rule which says that just because this is the article about the project that it need project more importance on Wikipedia relative to any other article. It should be presented with a NPOV as if it was just some random website, which means removing the buffing which comes from dozens of reference links to the same domain. Chris Cunningham 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the statement that says "Information can be found on Wikipedia by using search engines, article hyperlinks, or Wikipedia's topical organization of categories and portals"? This may be obvious to us, as regular users of both Wikipedia and the Internet, but remember that our articles should cater for a much wider audience. We all know what a search engine is, yet Search engine has to explain it in full.

I'm opposed to lowest-common-denominator editing. Chemistry articles assume some level of knowledge from the reader. So should website articles. Chris Cunningham 11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

78 kilobytes is a little lengthy, but it's by no means excessive, and we shouldn't be removing useful content purely for that reason. Remember that much of that 78Kb figure comes from the references, and the actual amount of text to be read is significantly smaller. This doesn't mean we should be getting rid of references, though.

The value in a large number of references to interlinked pages on the same domain is questionable. Regardless, my primary point is that such information doesn't belong in the intro. Wikipedia's governance model is not so interesting that the user is going to need to consult multiple sources over the subject of three lines in the intro. Chris Cunningham 11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content policies are important because they define the whole nature of the project, and are also both the percieved solution to and the subject of most of the criticism of the project, of which there is a lot. They deserve a mention for this reason, and as I said above, such a mention requires sourcing – Qxz 11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the size of the lead section, WP:LEAD suggests anything from one paragraph for a short article to four paragraphs for a long article. This is a long article, and there are four paragraphs; I don't see the problem with that – Qxz 11:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is self-reinforcing. The article is so long because of inclusionistic editing. This has to be tackled in chunks. However, if you don't think this article is overly-long and therefore tedious to read at the moment, there's obviously little that I can do to it. I don't think the article is a particularly good model for Wikipedia articles right now, primarily because its perceived importance has made people think that duplicating large portions of the site's meta-commentary is necessary to present a complete picture. I'd like to see the article presented more neutrally, and cutting the length down would improve the article's flow and readability. Chris Cunningham 11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is it's better than it was — I've trimmed down the "Criticism and controversy" section by over 10 Kb. The "Encyclopedic characteristics" section has since been introduced, thus bringing the size back up, but I think that's OK because it contains useful information that was lacking before. It could still use a trim and a check for biased material, though – Qxz 12:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you think this page is too long and full of meta-commentary you should try looking through the four sub-articles (listed in the to-do list); they're a lot worse — but we can only do so much at one time, and it's probably better to get the main article into shape first and then work on those – Qxz 12:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 110%

Jack Manion 74.167.217.43 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

With who? ffm ✎talk 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

2001

I don't agree with this because I remember being directed to this site through CNN NEWS yassa smell like khara around May 2003 but nothing was hardly here, then I cam eback in 2005 and voila, it was heavily populated

You don't agree with what? That the site was set up in 2001? It was, trust me (or see the sources if you don't trust me) – Qxz 19:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Table of Contents

The TOChidden template makes it so there is a "Contents" box inside a "Table of Contents" box. I know this doesn't matter that much, but it seems a little superfluous to me. Is there any way in which this could be changed? --Allispaul 06:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia community

I'm not sure if this article has anything that isn't already in this one. It survived AfD on no-consensus, but it's an extremely weak article. Should we just redirect? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC) :I'd say no. The article is a stub. Stating an article is weak is not a reason to redirect against the recent AFD decision and just put a redirect. A redirect is not the same as merging into this artice. I will remove the merge tag, because the subject matter is quite notable. The Wikipedia community is notable and has gained recognition. The community is what has made Wikipedia grow and what it is today. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

After careful consideration, I believe the info is redundant and should be nominated to redirect/merge. Or it could be nominated for deletion because it is not really notable. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I do know how to start an AFD. I recommend it be nominated for deletion based on the fact it is redundant, it is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and it reads like a promotional advertizement. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. Wikipedia community is a valid standalone subject. Wikipedia community provably exists and info about it is verifiable. If there is an overlap with "Wikipedia" article, there is a long-standing Wikipedia style of editing to split specialized articles from larger ones, rather than to make large pages into huge ones by merging. `'mikka 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is overlap already, it is clear there is no need for an extra article. Redundancy does not better an encyclopedia. Not much worth merging for a subject matter that is covered at the Wikipedia article and in the community article. A small paragraph covers the whole topic. We don't need to repeat it twice in separate articles. I recommend to AFD it. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid the words like "it is clear". It is your opinion. And funny in some places, such as hinting at the overlap with the community article. Why not with edit and consensus, group and people? The topic is separate. We have much smaller and much worse referenced articles on far inferior topics. On the other hand, after more careful reading both the article and the supplied sources, I see that the text is really weak. I will to something next week. If I fail to improve it, I will no longer object to merge. `'mikka 07:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the merge (for the reasons given in the AfD and by Night Gyr above). The subject matter doesn't merit a separate article, and is inherently OR and navel-gazing at best – Qxz 10:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it doesn't really matter, either way is fine with me. It kind of makes sense to merge them, but... I think maybe they should be merged, after all, they are on the same topic. Fuzzy 16:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with merging it (it's already been discussed on the talk page) is that it's just about too big to merge already, and in the wake of Essjay and the fact WP is cited more and more often in the news (almost weekly now) the amount of material written about editors is just going to grow... if it got merged today, for example, and if I were to follow all the RS that came out, I'd easily myself have enough content myself to have to split it righ back off in another month or so per the actual policies on forking. this was the closing admin's comments on the Afd. Numbers 2-4 are most important:

1. WP:ASR is a logically fallacious argument in this case. We are not making self-references here in anyway. See the examples provided on the guideline page, and you will understand what I mean.
2. Secondly, there isn't a little coverage on the topic, there is a lot of it, over the internet. Some of the sources have already been provided on the article. There are multiple, reliable and secondary sources available on the subject, we aren't merely quoting ourselves or providing primary references from Wikipedia or a mirror.
3. Thirdly, article has the potential to develop and grow into more than a stub, redirection and merging would definitely restrict that.
4. The article on Essjay controversy was later kept because of some of the reasons stated above.

This article will easily be as bulletproof content wise as Essjay's article in short order, and is already there sourcing wise.

Wikipedia's community is really just explaining how Wikipedia works. If the Wikipedia article is too big to describe such a fundamental concept as our editors.. then we should move other things to a second page if we have to. Separating the article just doesn't make any sense to me.

The Wikipedia community can easily be defined by one's perspective and isn't something we can just tie down to some specifics. A separate article will likely encourage a false impression of what the community actually is. -- Ned Scott 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that its easily a notable topic. The fact it's hard to write won't stop us and shouldn't. Also, the AfD was against merger. - Denny 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Both those things have nothing to do with what I just said. It's a notable topic because it's so core to Wikipedia. It's our editors and the concept of how we make Wikipedia work. Second, I didn't say it was hard to write about the topic, I said that it was highly subjective and a separate article could encourage a false perspective on the over-all community by focusing on just one possible perspective. Also, the AfD was not against a merger.. there was a strong support for a merger, but no clear consensus one way or the other. -- Ned Scott 17:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree there was clear concensus for a merge, and note also that AfD was based on the version of the article from weeks ago. Its more sourced, and expanded now. I think a merger or unilateral move to so would be a death sentence for an article that is either at stand alone status now or will certainly be in days to weeks. I also assume good faith but feel that many of the people in that AfD simply were reacting in defense of Essjay and simply don't want an article... on the community, as our warts may be recorded there. Regardless, the subject is notable, and if merged here will end up forking right back out due to content length. Whats the point in merging then? If I trim the community article down to an easy fat two paragraphs, just with the unused sources section I could make another 1-2 paragraphs. Once I do that, I'll have 3-4 paragraphs on the Wikipedia community here on the Wikipedia article. Another month, I'll certainly have another 1-2 paragraphs, and will be required to fork right back. Whats the point of a redirect? It will not stop myself and others from building the content if that is the intention. The article will stand barring an AfD to delete in the end. - Denny 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a sourcing issue.. it's an organization issue. You keep trying to argue with me on things I'm not even talking about. You would disagree there was a clear consensus for a merge? well great, me too.. I had just finished telling you that... Your assumptions about my motivations and logic are wrong.

Just because you can write 3 or 4 paragraphs on the topic doesn't mean they will have any quality to them at all. Like I said, what our community is or isn't is highly subjective. Lets say you are able to write 4 paragraphs of quality content.. that's still content that should be in this article. We're talking about how Wikipedia works.... And although people can get a general impression from the "community" you can't really label or generalize the community. There are so many sub-clicks and groupings of people in Wikipedia, with their own approaches and attitudes and viewpoints.. there's not a lot you can say that would be accurate for the greater body of Wikipedians. -- Ned Scott 17:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets let it stand as-is for a week. Based on that if the community... supports the merge, I'll happily do it myself, and just expand out that new section here as it develops. We can take up forking later then, based on the forking policies... - Denny 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be merged. It looks like someone cut-and-pasted out of the Wikipedia article. If it was just merged it at where the Wikipedia Community is mentioned, it would fit in perfectly. Even expanding it would be silly, since the hassle will continue until, one day, it will be merged.

hahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha u r werid

color="blue">Wiki]]Whippet (deeds) 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)~

Merge Per WikiWhippet --Spobmur 15:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Article seems encyclopedic to me. Aaron Bowen 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Section "Reliability and bias"

Wikipedia appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed publications rather than the personal authority of experts.

IMO this statement is false as it stands. Wikipedia can rely on personal authority of experts within their recognized area of expertize, as well as on the authority of government officials (i.e., experts in government), see WP:RS#Exceptions. The idea probably was ".. rather than on the personal authority of experts contribution ot wikipedia". In any case, what is "the authority of peer-reviewed" other than the sum of the personal authorities of peers? `'mikka 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A drawback of this citation-only approach is that readers may be unable to judge the credibility of a cited source

An opinion, not a fact. requires reference. What is more, this statement is dubious: a drawback in comparison to what? Do readers "judge" the credibility of EB authors? They simply accustomed to believe in credibility of EB. In fact, in certain areas EB is biased as hell. The most recent example that came to my attention is whitewashing their compatriot John Mills (In frief, EB says that Mills "withdrew from the project" of Encyclopédie, while independent historians say he was kicked out and even banged on his head for his bad job) Secondly, we have WP:RS in place to ensure that verifiably credible sources are cited. `'mikka 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

fun with wiki

It might be a good idea to add a section that tells you all the fun stuff they can do with Wikipedia. I like to ask people a random or hard to find subject then see if I can find it only using links from either the home page or a random article. Or maybe it's just me that likes to waste time on Wikipedia? Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stupidninja (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Rejoice, you are not alone! See Wikipedia:Wikifun. `'mikka 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Such a section is not appropriate in an encyclopedic article. However, that does not preclude us from maintaning project pages containing such content; in addition to the page Mikka pointed out we have such pages as Wikipedia:Unusual articles. As for your idea of trying to get from one article to another using only links, that's been around for a while; there's a page about exactly that at Wikipedia:Wikirace – Qxz 11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Audio pronunciation file broken

Just thought I'd point out that Image:En-us-Wikipedia.ogg appears to be broken. This is the .ogg file linked at the top of the article as a pronunciation guide for the word "wikipedia". Either the fie is corruped somehow or the recording was made incorrectly from the start, but upon download it says something more like "P-Di". Witty lama 11:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd. It works fine for me; I hear all five syllables. Try re-downloading it, ensure codecs are installed properly etc., and try again – Qxz 11:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm uninformed as to the standards, but it seems as if this should be offered in a form that 's not ogg. Most internet users don't have the right codecs and software to play these. MP3 anyone? Stvspl 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is probably resistance to using MP3due to the fact that it is a proprietary format, while OGG is open source. --OuroborosCobra 02:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine

The wikipedia search box is not very reliable. If you are a letter or two off, it won't give show you the term you are looking for. blah

Please sign your posts! Also, it won't give the article because there is no spell checker, but it WILL give similar articles. Think about what you're saying. Besides, does this belong in the article? ~ Giggy! ^{Talk | Contribs} _{About Me | QASMT} 05:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

"and that Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as other online encyclopedias."

come on, who are people kidding? and "Several scholarly studies have concluded" ?? ...not quite... one compared Britannica to wikipedia, saying there were about the same number of inaccuracies, however said nothing of the degree of the inaccuracy; many independent sources reviewing several articles, noted many serious factual errors... vandalism maybe "short lived" that isnt to say what has been vandalised is in any way correct to start with... there seems to be, in this section, a move to say only vandalism is inaccurate, or at least to bundle error with vandalism, there is nothing of the ignorance authors of the currently "accepted" version... and there is also a flavour of "truth is what the consensus agrees it to be", apparently decrying people who actually Know Things as "elites", this seems me childish. to equate Wikipedia with Britannica, to say that everyday people can seriously provide the same sort of information, with the same accuracy, is nonsense. Where do editors get the info from anyway? professionals... Serious criticism needs to be summed up here... (and is this section a placed for balanced views, surely that wouldn't constitute "criticism")

Some statements by Fighting for Justice:

“Wikipedia isn't academic. It maybe trying to be, but it's got a long ways to go.” [1]

“Wikipedia is not a crime database. It does not have to be perfect.” and “Wikipedia doesn't claim it contains the truth.” [2]

That user is an enthusiastic supporter of Wikipedia, but he clearly has a low opinion of its contents. Is he right? And if so, does the existing article on Wikipedia adequately reflect this?196.2.56.5 04:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does claim to be an encyclopedia - which it isn't. By definition an encyclopedia is "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia is anything but comprehensive - let alone accurate, or reliable, or for that matter respectable. Personal experience has shown that Wikipedia is a group of individuals whose ego's are self-served by publishing whatever their opinions are at the moment; Wikipedia refers to it as "Other Crap". Wikipedia has rules, but if you are inside the main Clique you aren't required to follow them - just follow your opinions. Post what you will, revert what you want. Now, does anyone believe that leads to credibility? DaVoice 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Wikipedia is a young encyclopedia compared to its competitors - it is currently a work in progress; anyway, how are articles such as Hilary Putnam amuteurish? The first edition of the Britannica contains gross inaccuracies and fanciful speculations; for example, it states that excess use of tobacco could cause neurodegeneration, "drying up the brain to a little black lump consisting of mere membranes". It's getting better all the time. How is it not comprehensive? Wikipedia is the world's largest encyclopedia by number of articles. CloudNine 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine back to earth (just a little pun on your name - please don't be offended). Wikipedia is anything but comprehensive, the articles it has are based solely on the interests of those posting - lack of interest = no article. Furthermore, the articles that are published are only scrutinized for accuracy by a few - of whom the ones I've met aren't qualified to be posting let alone editing. You make the assertion that Wikipedia is the world's largest "encyclopedia" assuming that we agree that it qualifies as such, but it doesn't and I certainly don't agree with your definition or usage of the word encyclopedia. Just because one makes a statement doesn't make that statement true. Example, Fox News' motto, "Fair and Balanced" - I ask, in whose opinion? When you look at Wikipedia for what it is, you end up with a 1 billion plus pages of what Wikipedia calls "Other Crap". Now one can hardly classify that as an encyclopedia. Now that we've looked at Wikipedia for what it truly is, allow me to say that I believe the concept of Wikipedia is great. However, for it to be credible Wikipedia needs to ensure that all of its users follow the rules. After a founder and numerous arbitrators have agreed to advise me, only to disappear when they realize the issue involves abuse by a user/contributer who seemingly posts a lot, it doesn't give much credibility to their agenda. Wikipedia cannot be credible and certainly will never become an encyclopedia with that philosophy, those ethics. So, I hope you understand, simply because they "want to be," "call themselves," an encyclopedia does not make it so. There isn't an encyclopedia fairy out there sprinkling encyclopedia dust over the pages of Wikipedia magically turning Wikipedia into an encyclopedia. Furthermore, it is said that an expert is so because he/she is considered such by other experts. Unfortunately, if you apply that to Wikipedia there isn't anyone out there in the encyclopedia field affirming Wikipedia. Which leaves Wikipedia in that category of being 1 billion plus pages of "Other Crap". DaVoice 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offended :) Yes, Wikipedia is still in its early days. Yes, there's a lot of frankly rubbish articles. However, I don't think we should give up the goal because we're not there yet. Could I see some evidence of what you said? I find that hard to believe; rules are enforced pretty strictly at Wikipedia. I reckon Wikipedia is fair and balanced; it has no agenda to push thanks to its wide variety of contributors and lack of advertising; we're not talking about Conservapedia here. CloudNine 08:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine- Again, it is easy for anyone to assert anything...you assert, “I find that hard to believe; rules are enforced pretty strictly at Wikipedia.” Yet I find no evidence of that. To the contrary, I stated that those in the Wiki-Clique don’t have to follow rules. Here’s my evidence. Newton Falls, OH page archive is a collection of arguments in support of user Rührfisch. The issue stems from Wikipedia not forcing users to read its rules prior to posting…so, I didn’t – I simply posted a link to a free community website, the Newton Falls Leader, that I run. In principal, its intent is much like Wikipedia, where users contribute; and like Wikipedia it sells no advertisements. Well, despite the link meeting all of Wikipedia’s rules for external links, as it contains articles and pictures of the events mentioned in the article, it has a .tc domain and watchdog Rührfisch took it upon himself to revert the link. He did so against Wikipedia rules, and didn’t bother to ask/question/or inform me that he had – When I questioned him, he admitted it was due the .tc – later, he states a myriad of reasons, none of which are true, none of which have anything to do with Wikipedia rules – I’ll let you read the archive. Simply, he contributes to Wikipedia, and so contacted his friends who chimed in with their meaningless opinions. Since, I’ve written to folks asking for advice as to the next step to take…here is an example of what that produced:

Received 3/27/07

“Thanks for writing! : ) I don't have time at the moment, but I will get around to responding to this tomorrow. Sorry it took me so long to see this email.” (a member of the Mediation Committee)

Yet, I haven’t heard back from this user – despite my 4/2/07 inquiry, “Just checking ... have you had a chance to look at this? I'm awaiting your feedback.” DaVoice

It’s easy for one to see that it depends on who the user is as to whether or not Wikipedia will enforce its rules. If you’re still not convinced, read the comments of user Blah0401. Supposedly he is to be an unbiased 3rd party...in a private email, he states to me that he won’t take sides, yet in his posts he tells Rührfisch, “...and I am in fact swaying to not use the link.” This after he had posted, “I do believe that the link does have a very direct relationship with the article. After all, the article is about Newton Falls, Ohio and the website gives readers and people researching Newton Falls on Wikipedia extra information straight from the source.”

Now, Wikipedia chooses to archive the debate and ignore my requests for guidance in taking this to a level where someone in Wikipedia will make a ruling based on its rules – not on Rührfisch’s opinions. DaVoice 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you've had a disagreement over one external link; does it matter that much? If it is indeed a fountain of knowledge, it will be added to the article by someone else; I don't think Rührfisch is out to try and break the rules. Just try and see if you can work things out. CloudNine 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine to answer your question, no the link doesn't matter, what matters is Wikipedia's credibility. Your first reply to my comment was to counter my argument that Wikipedia has no credibility. I simply pointed to the evidence. Now you want to trivialize the abuse of WikiRules in defense of those very rules...an argument that doens't make sense. DaVoice 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello DaVoice.

• Content disputes, like this one, can be solved through the dispute resolution process.
• Archival is normally done in a big block - the person who did the archiving probably just didn't notice the dispute was ongoing and archived it. Please assume that other users act in good faith. To fix the archival problem, just cut and paste the discussion back onto the talk page.
• Other users are just like yourself. They are unpaid volunteers generally not connected to Wikipedias rulers (the Wikimedia Foundation). Archival, removal and addition of content, and even the answers here are written by normal people.

--h2g2bob 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

h2g2bob thanks for the input - I appreciate your sincerity. Please don't take my remarks offensively, however, you ask that I "please assume that others act in good faith." Only, I ask, are you asking Rührfisch to do the same? He certainly hasn't acted in good faith, but because I state facts, I am not? Or, is it that I'm not in the Wiki-clique? Athaenara archived the content, without notice or consent, nor was Athaenara a part of this issue. In fact, Athaenara has only served as an advocate to Rührfisch. Lack of reason/justifcation/notification then only leaves one to believe that the archiving was done to hide the embarrassment that the discussion has brought to these folks; all good faith considered.

It's funny, when you point out a Wiki-Clique user's abuse folks are quick to yell good faith...but no one seems to chastise the Wiki-Clique user for being the one who actually is abusing the good faith rule - seems once again, WikiRules only apply to those outside the Wiki-Clique. DaVoice 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a Wiki-Clique? Why wasn't I invited to join? :) There's isn't a cabal or conspiracy working against you; it's probably a misunderstanding on Rührfisch part. Anyway, Talk:Wikipedia isn't the proper forum to resolve such issues; I too recommend the dispute resolution process. CloudNine 14:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine did I miss something??? Firstly, no I'm sorry to say that you aren't invited to join. Secondly, I respond to your inquiries and now you want to chastise me for misuse of this forum? Really! DaVoice 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. After inquiring about your proble, I'm just trying to help by pointing you towards a place where you might be able to resolve it. Apologies if I came across otherwise. CloudNine 15:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I hope that you can see the evidence that when someone points out the abuse of a Wiki-Clique insider that user is quickly attacked - attacked by people who argue that the person pointing out the abuse is actually the abuser - it makes no sense! DaVoice 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I must point however, that there is no WikiClick/cabal (by WikiClick I assume you mean Wiki-Clique) CloudNine 15:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected...maybe that's why they won't let me join ;)! I've also corrected this in my prior posts and once in your posts - I hope you don't mind. DaVoice 16:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a bit like a web-within-the-web, where specualtion, false information and rumour can be inserted on a whim and presented as inviolable truth. I currently am of the view that it's useful as a videogaming rumour mill and not much else. If I want to actually find out important information, information that's of some use to me I'd use a library; a place where I can hold my sources in my hands without worrying about whether someone had come in during the night and typed a few extra pages of rubbish in the middle.

Because articles such as Antarctica and Great Fire of London are as useful as "a videogaming rumour mill? Interesting... CloudNine 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as the guy who wrote th e"rumour mill" comment, I'm just saying that you frankly have to question the academic value of an "encylopedia" where the article on Kratos from God of War is more detailed than the article on Hamlet.

First of all, no it's not. I'm not sure what criteria you use to measure "more detailed", but I don't see how you'd think the Kratos article is more detailed than the Hamlet one.

Secondly, and more importantly, why do you feel a detailed article on a video game character (or anything, for that matter) detracts from the encyclopedia? Would Wikipedia magically have greater academic value if we deleted most of the videogame and Pokemon articles? I don't quite see how a lack of information on admittedly trivial topics would raise an encyclopedia's value. Wikipedia is not paper: the video game articles don't take up valuable space, and aren't bothering anyone.

If you're saying the Hamlet article is lacking, then feel free to say why on the talk page, or edit it yourself. Maybe compare it to the same article in another encyclopedia. But I'm not sure what the Kratos article has to do with that. --Ashenai 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for anyone to get indignant...I was merely trying to make a worthwhile point about how it's a shame that it's generally much easier for users to to make an article on something as trivial as a video game when infinitely more interesting and rewarding subjects can be tackled (after all, I'd take greater pride in writing, say, a lucid description of a philosophy that interested me than just describing what I'd seen in a cartoon or video game. It's not as if I was writing "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS LOL" all over the site. No, I merely made my contribution to the debate, and surely that's part of the Wiki ethos.

I think you may have misread my tone (easy to do over the internet). I'm not indignant, my apologies if it seemed that way. I was just making the point that I don't think there's such a thing as an article that's too good, even if it is on trivial topics like video games or rock stars.

Would I be happier if Wikipedia's history and literature articles had the kind of over-the-top borderline obsessive work put into them as the Pokemon articles? Yes, definitely. But even though many Wikipedia editors often choose pop-culture topics to lavish with attention, there are plenty of good editors for the "serious" topics as well.

I guess all I'm saying is that saying "Wikipedia is not encyclopedic because the article on Kratos (or Pokemon, or whatever) is huge" is a really strange thing to say, and kind of a logical fallacy. Since when does one criticize an encyclopedia for having too much accurate, verifiable content? --Ashenai 08:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ashenai, I must chime in here. You state, "saying 'Wikipedia is not encyclopedic'." Question, Who says it is? Answer: Only those of you who are attempting to create your own gratification/glorification - I prefer the term "egocentric." By no other standards is Wikipedia considered encyclopedic. Wikipedia itself defines encyclopedic as, "An encyclopedia...is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." The key word being compendium, "A compendium is a concise, yet comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge." Wikipedia is anything but a comprehensive compilation, except for what it refers to as "other crap". Wikipedia's concept is great, however it allows too many cliques, such as those involved with Rührfisch and Zzuuzz, who work against Wikipedia by ruling based on their opinions and not Wikipedia's rules. So, when you assert opinions please don't expect the rest of us, who truly do think logically, to accept such absurdities. And, please don't take that as my being indignant! DaVoice 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

DaVoice, just because one of your links was removed (it doesn't meet WP:EL, and is a conflict of interest anyway), doesn't mean they're out to get you. I've seen no evidence that you've tried to work out your dispute with the editors in question, and yet you try to generalise to three million editors and 1.7 million articles. There is no clique, and they're not out to get you. It does get a bit tiring when you repeat the same criticism. CloudNine 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine FYI - my statements are fact! Please, if you can prove them wrong, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself. I do not appreciate your feeble attempt to trivialize the wrong that exists here at Wikipedia. Nor, do I appreciate your assertions of what you know nothing about. You have no idea the people within Wikipedia that I've spoken to, yet you draw a conclusion based soley on a pompous opinion; which is in itself is absurd! I will not attempt to honor you with a list of individuals of whom I have contacted, you aren't worthy of such dignification. So, please don't attempt to force your opinions on those of us who know the facts. If you want to make assertions, do as I have, state fact - not opinion! By the way, have you read Wikipedia's rule on civility? If you do, you'll find that your comments, and the actions of Rührfisch and Zzuuzz are causing "an atmosphere of greater conflict!" DaVoice 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do. I took a look through your contributions, and realised you've made only several edits to the article namespace. Where's the wrong that exists at Wikipedia? I saw no evidence of dispute resolution being attempted; how else will you be able to work out your problems? If you put people together, there will be conflicts; deal with it. I hardly think replying with a summary 'Replying to CloudNine's absurdities' is civil.

There is no cabal. Give it a rest. CloudNine 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine - "I do?" What did I ask you to marry me? You do what? For the feebleness of it, the civility rule applies to people like you who make absurd assertions based on opinion, that is what Wikipedia calls creating an atmosphere of greater conflict. You see, you state an absurd, uneducated opinion and that leads others to prove you wrong...which, like Rührfisch and Zzuuzz, you are too (I prefer the term) "egocentric to admit. The rest of your last comment is so blatantly pathetic it, like you, isn't worthy of comment. If you want to be treated with civility, you must first show civility - FYI: your propagating lies and fallacies is not being civil - so don't be uncivil, and others won't take your lead! DaVoice 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. You've convinced yourself that Rührfisch and Zzuuzz are working against you. In short, they're not out to get you. I'm not sure where I've lied. Also, no personal attacks please. Calling me "egocentric" is a personal attack. Anyway, this is *way* off-topic. Read the sentence at the topic of the page. You're clearly advertising with your external link (first under the name of User:NewtonFallsLeader, and now User:DaVoice). I don't see any utility in your external link. CloudNine 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine Wow! Where is your white horse? You start this "other crap", then when you cannot defend yourself any longer, and instead of admitting you're wrong, you want to blame other people...the truest definition of egocentricity. And then, you back it up with more absurd, unfounded opinions. To wrongly attack me isn't going to bring credibility to your statements, nor is it going to make your words anything more than preposterous opinions. It will, however, show the world what end of that white horse you resemble. So again, I plead with you to stop embarrassing yourself. DaVoice 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks. CloudNine 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine - opinion, apology, what of your statement? You attack me saying all sorts of unfounded opinions, and you don't expect me to respond? This is the very reason Wikipedia has civility rules, so that you, CloudNine, don't make statements that you cannot back up and therefore aren't proven wrong. As I said earlier, don't be uncivil, and others won't take your lead. And, after all of this you still won't admit you are the cause - not amazing, purely egocentric! DaVoice 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm being civil. I've not personally attacked you, and yet you're attacking me. You will be blocked if you continue. CloudNine 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine you've got to be kidding! You respond to a comment that I made to Ashenai attacking me saying, "it doesn't meet WP:EL, and is a conflict of interest anyway), doesn't mean they're out to get you." These statements are totally false and only based on your opinions, which I have proven wrong already, and see no need to do it again here. No one asked for your opinion on my comments to Ashenai, you made that decision. Furthermore, instead of agreeing or disagreeing with what I said about Wikipedia you chose to attack me regarding an ongoing dispute. Trying to denigrate me is being uncivil...and that you started. Block me? For what? Because you cannot defend your opinions/actions? I'm to blame for that? NOT! Instead, I will ask that you are blocked for creating "an atmosphere of greater conflict!" DaVoice 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are generally two types of moderators on the internet. There are "active" moderators and "passive" ones. Passive ones tend to be very knowledgable, very calm, relaxed, secure people. They get along find in their social world, have had a good time in high school and college, and are generally not power hungry. Active ones tend to be very vengeful, bitter from being left out in social situations, beat up in high school, or not talked to by girls. They strike down ANYONE that uses any profane language or BANS everyone that criticizes something that they say. Quick to erase, edit, and claim their flag on everything. Power hungry to make up for the fact they were left out and can't get laid. I have seen nothing but "active" mods on Wiki. And they will ultimately pay for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.101.181 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Just Curious?

Will wikipedia stop for some reason when we make first contact with aliens?

---

Why would it? There'd be lots of new info to add at that point, and even if some of it wasn't originally human knowledge, it would become such once humans learned it. *Dan T.* 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

want t know

i want to know how wikipedia and other websites earn , i mean how are they earning , what's the procedure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.247.234.171 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Our beloved founder, Jimmy of Wales, Lord Over All That We AfD.

Wikipedia itself doesn't earn as such - the Wikimedia Foundation is a charity, so almost all of its income is from donations and fundraising. There are no adverts on the site, and we don't really sell anything, so there's no direct way of making profit, and profit isn't what the organization is about. Occasionally you'll see a fundraising drive happening here on the site, once Jimmy Wales realises we don't have enough cash for next year's budget. Other websites make money in many different ways, but most commonly through advertising, with programmes like Google AdSense. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for wikipedia not having any advertisements? Surely this would be a sensible solution against money issues. Also why is wikipedia not trying to prevail as a business. They already are well known, and with some drive can be turned into a big profit making company.

Because not everything is about money? I prefer Wikipedia as a free, open content encyclopedia with no advertisments whatsoever. CloudNine 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because:

1. Advertisments are annoying, rated as one of the most annoying things on the internet, and they degrade the (mostly) serious nature of the website. He says on April Fools' Day...

2. As I already said, Wikipedia is a charity. It does not want to make any profit, and doesn't need to. I'm sure Jimmy Wales has thought before about how rich he might become by turning it into a commercial venture, but one of the best things about Wikipedia is that's it's completely free, no strings attached, and run by volunteers. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A donation based funding also makes sure that the incentetives are to please the people working on the encylopedia rather than on the advertisers will. Lord Metroid 13:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

10th in Alexa rankings 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnote aside, today, 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC) is the first time I have seen Alexa place Wikipedia in the top ten world wide. --Ancheta Wis 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

I have sad this before on this talk page,considering just how popular wikipedia is (now top ten most visited websites[3]) I really think a little advertissement wouldn't hurt.I'm not saying the founders should become money hungry people, but being one of the top ten websites I'm sure would mean you would never need donations from anyone,and the big surplus they could atleast put towards improving the site with extra servers or whatever,but keeping some for themselves wouldn't hurt eitherRodrigue 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that would have to be considered is that every Wikipedia article would have to be redone from scratch to avoid the legal hassles. I've contributed quite a bit of my own wok on the basis that I was helping a non-profit project. Should wikipedia start making money off of the work and contributions of other people, I wouldn't be suprised if the lawsuits started rolling in. I know a few people who's published works have been plaigarized on this website, but because it is for the sake of spreading knowledge, they merely edit a reference tag onto it and let it go. Should Wikipedia start making money off of these "references", you can be sure that just about anyone who's ever written a book or published an article will start trolling for their cut.

Wikipedia:About

I think that having Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia is redundant, they are both virtualy the same with the exception that WP:ABOUT isn't really an article. They both however start virually the same and they both cover the exact same topic just with different titles. Feedback? Scottydude 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure everything goes right.

Ok, I guess WP:ABOUT is really more an intro for newcomers. I spoke to soon, unless of course you agree. Scottydude 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference you noticed "that WP:ABOUT isn't really an article" is a pretty major difference. Wikipedia is an article which about Wikipedia in the same style as articles about any other topic (such as Great Britain, Eucalyptus or Janet Jackson) are written. It is distributed amongst other mirror sites which use Wikipedia articles. It should discuss Wikipedia from the same point of view that our article on Encyclopædia Britannica or any other reference work is written.

Wikipedia:About is a completely different thing - it is designed for people who have found the website and want to know about how to use it, edit it, and so on. It is a part of this site - not any other, it is not mirrored anywhere.

See Wikipedia:Namespace for more information about the separate namespaces. -- Chuq 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article here is an encyclopedia article which can equally be used elsewhere, such as Answers.com's copy of Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia. --h2g2bob 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think on the definition page for the entry "Wikipedia" (yes, I looked up "Wikipedia" on Wikipedia -- I had to do it just to see if the universe would collapse), there should just be two words: Mostly harmless. -- John Patten, 04/08/07

Shutdown?

Stumbled across this article [4] and was wondering if anyone had heard anything about it? Zchris87v 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the 12th February Signpost article. Donate! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Some days after the "incident", a generous donor made a donation of USD 100,000.00 to Wikimedia. Camptown 10:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's opponents weakening Wikipedia's credibility...?

THIS TOPIC NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. Unless you guys hadn't noticed, Conservapedia, Anarchopedia, and more are now legitimate threats to Wikipedia's web supremacy. Let's discuss what should and should not be done -- let's "be bold," but PLEASE let's keep it CIVIL. Memetic Warfare 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk in bold type! Talk:Wikipedia is not the place to discuss such affairs; what relation does it have to the Wikipedia article? Try the Wikipedia:Village pump. CloudNine 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides which retaining wikipedia's web supremacy isnt really a valid topic of conversation anywhere on wikipedia nor do these other wikis show any sign of threatening the popularity of wikipedia, SqueakBox 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides competetion leads to better products. If they are becommeing popular than wikipedia needs to enhance the products and services offers to stay ahead. Evolve or decease, that's good for everyone in the end! Lord Metroid 13:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, have you tried actually reading Conservapedia? It's total, absolute, and unmitigated crap of no educational value whatsoever - for goodness' sake it would have you believe that all species originate in the Middle East, where they emerged out of Noah's Ark!! -- Arwel (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Merge Tag"

The Wikipedia community article has significantly expanded. It would be a joke to merge it into this article. Take a look at the Wikipedia community article. Its way too big to merge. I suggest removing the merge tag right away. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As I keep trying to point out, size alone shouldn't be a factor. We can easily trim unneeded info from both articles. The community is such a core topic to Wikipedia that it would even make sense to take something else from this article and split it, rather than doing that with the community topic. And look, another AfD on the article... Considering some of the suggesting to artificially bloat the community article (like that newbies idea...), I'm sorry, but I question your judgement on this, Quack. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything of value on the community page can and should be (and often already is) mentioned on this article. Trying to split the community concept like this simply isn't logical. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please, be patient! There is already a link to that article under "See also". Mergers should only take place when articles really overlap. Of course, things might change (that article is currently undergoing some edit), but the merger discussion should preferably take place at that articles talk page. As long as Wikipedia community is nominated for deletion (Afd), there should not be a merger tag here. --Camptown 08:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Erm, no, there's no reason a merge tag can't be along side an AfD tag, especially when the AfD shows some editors supporting the idea. The merge tag is a way to point users to a discussion, it is not a declaration of the final outcome. In other words, a merge tag alone does not mean an article should be merged. If you feel so strongly that the articles can stand alone then don't fear the discussion. Allow other editors to know that it is an option, and what the pros and cons are. -- Ned Scott 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Article is way way too big to merge. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of what's in Wikipedia community is cruft and can easily be cut. Of all the topics to split off from this article, the community is one of the last ones we should consider. We can easily split off a more logical sub-topic to make room. There are many options we have, and I don't see why you feel so rushed to take down the merge tag when there is still many ideas to discuss. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

which parts specificly are cruft? Perhaps if you removed them first, then talked about merger, it would go better? Regards sbandrews (t) 12:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The merge proposal is an attempt to "trim" the Wikipedia community article. I suggest to remove the silly merge tag. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No valuable content would be lost in such a merge. Much of what is said is already said in this article. -- Ned Scott 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A certain editor believes the Wikipedia community (all of us) is not valuable. The community is valuable and is to be respected. I say remove the merge tag and be done with it. The AFD was a keep and not merge. Its time to move on. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Ned is not saying the Wikipedia community is not valuable, nor is he disrespecting anybody.

I strongly support a merge, per Ned Scott's comments, either here or to English Wikipedia, which also has a lot of community-related information. I don't think it's appropriate to have a sub-article on the community, because Wikipedia pretty much is the community. It doesn't matter how long this article is or how many sources it has - although I have too say that spending more page space on sources than on the article itself is a bit excessive. Do we really need five sources to back up the first line alone? But when you eliminate the content that's duplicated in the main article, there's a very reasonable amount of actual content here that would work nicely as a sub-section. -- Vary | Talk 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We can easily trim unneeded info from both articles

Why would you? We grow articles and split them when they get too big; we don't merge articles and delete content to make them fit. — Omegatron 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trim can mean many things. For one, better wording can let you say more with fewer words, and often in a more accurate way. Obviously, anything of encyclopedic value would be kept. Another point is we have several articles about Wikipedia, such as English Wikipedia, Criticism of Wikipedia Wikipedia in popular culture, Reliability of Wikipedia, and more, and much of content that can be "trimmed" is content that is already covered in other articles. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be merged, solely because it's not a big article, and a lot of it is pointless anyway ( Example). A merge would get all of this article's editors watching it. Trimming? You can't trim it much before it loses its table of contents! ~ Giggy! ^{Talk | Contribs} _{About Me | QASMT} 05:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Article doesn't seem "crufty" in any way to me. Aaron Bowen 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• What about other concerns brought up, such as repeated information, and over-all article organization? -- Ned Scott 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Another option

How would people feel if the merge for Wikipedia community was with English Wikipedia? -- Ned Scott 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is a good idea. Wikipedia is becoming more an more notable, and it's a good way to split the info. It can cover pedians of all languages. That English Wikipedia page can and will be a lot larger, without any merging. - Peregrine Fisher 02:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about Wikipedia community, not Wikipedia... -- Ned Scott 03:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Small padlock or big padlock?

I see both versions of the semi protection template are being used in alternance here [5] [6] [7]. I tend to prefer the small padlock, which doesn't add a message box, but instead of revert warring, let's discuss it -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, this is one of our most visible pages – often the fourth or fifth most-viewed article (and that's including the Main Page). It shouldn't be cluttered full of message boxes. Having the padlock icon in the corner lets those who understand protection see at a glance that it's semi-protected without distracting readers from the article itself. Those who feel like editing the page and aren't experienced enough to know what the padlock icon means will find out soon enough anyway, when the click the "edit" button and are presented with a detailed message about protection. It can hardly come as a surprise to a newcomer that an article as visible as this one can't be edited straight away. Now if only we could do something about that annoying merge tag – Gurch 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm for the small padlock. CloudNine 10:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Big padlock makes me happy. --98E 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

didnt there used 2 be a why wikipedia is/isnt so great link in the see also section?

i remember seeing that somewhere.... did it get deleted or something? - kozmic|sk8r 09:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia#Criticism_and_controversy? The main article of this section has some External Links. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's a little precious that there's a Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia?

Not really, since the content of Wikipedia is used by some other websites, about.com for example. It would be strange if they didn't had an article about us -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It would in fact be rather strange if we didn't have an article on Wikipedia. In the English speaking western world in particular, wikipedia has reached such a level of use and public awareness that there would be a gaping hole in our coverage if we didn't have an article on wikipedia. E Britannica have articles on E britannica and wikipedia. Encarta doesn't appear to have any articles on EB, but they do mention them all in encyclopaedia. Bear in mind due to our nature we have articles on a lot of things they don't cover and we often go into more depth then they do too. There is however a consensus though that we should minimise self references so for example, even if this makes FA again, it should never end up on the main page. Nil Einne 13:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

501(c) charity

It's in wikipedia's footer, it should be prominently displayed in it's article entry.

1. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

Mathiastck 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why can't it just be in the footer? What reason is there for having it in the article exactly the same? Something about the chairty is in there anyway. :P —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because if the article was about anything but Wikipedia it would be displayed more prominently then the footer. Mathiastck 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Obscene grammar point

A graph early in the page is described in its caption as showing the amount of articles in Wikipedia, Britannica, etc. Please, please change this to the number. It is very painful to read.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.59 (talk • contribs)

How is this Obscene? ffm ✎talk 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

They may be related to Brian Sewell. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, grammar purists want to see letters and no numbers. In fact, this may not even be a grammar issue at all - it's a purely stylistic preference Gautam ^Discuss 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean, change it to a number ("numeral", I'm assuming you meant) in the sentence. I meant that grammar dictates "number of articles". The phrase "amount of articles" is nonsense. Surely this is obscene as grammar gets.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.59 (talk • contribs)

Which isn't very obscene at all, at least compared with what I'd normally use that word to describe. I can think of stylistic tendencies that seem far more deserving of the adjective, but I wouldn't use it of them. Besides, the use of "amount" instead of "number" is not a matter of grammar (q.v.), but of lexical choice. And no, "amount of articles" is not nonsense: it's perfectly comprehensible, and certainly not ambiguous. I admit: if I'd noticed it before, I'm sure I'd have changed it, but only because it deviates slightly from formal style, not because it's "nonsense". garik 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. garik 18:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's ungrammatical. "Amount" is for uncountables. 83.67.217.254 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for the person who wrote it. garik 09:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From all appearences, English (the language of this wiki and metalanguage for this discussion of this wiki) is a human language where usage dictates the grammatical rule and not a formal language where only the rules can define what is or is not in the language. There are many examples of finite, countable numbers are referred to as amounts without ambiguity. Just look at any commercial or government financial statement or the transaction summary of your own bank accounts. If amount is restricted to only uncountable numbers, then only numbers greater than the count of natural numbers may be referred to as amounts. As most people generally do not discuss orders of infinity beyond the count of natural numbers, a strict grammatical rule on amount would essentially ban the word from ordinary usage with the exception of referring to sets of things not yet counted. Hotfeba 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Audience and use of the vernacular

This topic needs a section on audience and, if data can be had, demographics. There is much confusion in many entries, especially those on controversial scientific subjects, as to whether Wikipedia is written to scientists or laymen. Arguably, it is written to laymen who do not have access to specialized professional publications or the specialized knowledge requisite to understand the specialized vocabulary of many disciplines. So while more technical articles should perhaps include correct specialized/clinical vocabulary, they should also incorporate layman terminology when it is available.

Another point that requires clarification, especially regarding controversial scientific topics that have a moral facet, is that Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or publication. It is a primarily a resource for layman. Hence, any presentation of a topic needs to speak to the scientific and lay perspective of a topic. It won’t do to speak only of “termination of life via asphyxiation” if what the layman understands is “lynching” or “hanging.” It won’t due to speak of “termination of the life of the subject” or “euthanizing the subject” if what the layman understands is “putting to death a convicted felon.” It won’t due to speak of “blunt force trauma to the cranium” when the layman understands, “she was struck on the head with a hammer.” The exclusive use of technical language in lieu of the vernacular does not make Wikipedia more authoritative. -L. Porrello 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ADDING PICTURES

    How do you add pictures to an artile page?
                 Miafan1

Thanks for all ur help lol

lol artile