Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Question

I'm a Wikipedia veteran who made a brief speech about how Wikipedia works, its power and reach, and how it channels neophytes into becoming quality contributors. It urges people to become Wikipedians. It's titled The genius of Wikipedia. It does not sell anything; I get no money from YouTube if it is watched (my other books are mentioned briefly at the end). I've been told that I should not restore it for COI reasons but that others, such as yourself, can. If you watch it, and think it is useful, please consider restoring it to the external links.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe it should be linked from the article. Looking at WP:ELNO it fails both #1 and #11. ~ GB fan 17:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Basic description of this webpage

Do you think it would be appropriate to add "Wikipedia is what we are" or "Wikipedia is this very website"?

No, because Wikipedia has many Mirrors & Forks where this page may appear - even though the user is not actually on Wikipedia. Versageek 21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No. See WP:WAWI. Kranix (talk | contribs) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

How to edit?

How do u edit? I am bone123 (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am bone123, you can edit articles in the same way as you edit talk pages - just click the "edit" button! I recommend looking at WP:TWA for a guide for how you can go about editing. It's worth noting that this specific page is supposed to be for discussing the Wikipedia article about Wikipedia itself, and not a general how-to help page. You can find more resources at WP:Q stwalkerster (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Geographic distribution of topic coverage

This article says that in terms of geographical distribution of topic articles, Africa is most under-represented. Is North America over-represented? I guess this would be so, given that Wikipedia was brought out by North Americans. Vorbee (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we have a large coverage of Europe, Asia, and Oceania; thanks in part to editors who are either locals, emigrants who live or used to live there, or heavily interested in these regions.

We have numerous articles on African history and South American history, but many are mere stubs. And we often lack information on recent or current events on most African countries. We don't seem to be attracting many volunteer editors from there. Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

/* Coverage of topics and systemic bias */ - References to Wikipedia Policies

This section has a statement "Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article. Since it has terabytes of disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any printed encyclopedia.", referenced currently by reference 187.

This is reference is to a Wikipedia Policy guideline, WP:PAPER. The policy is that Wikipedia is not considered a valid source, but when it comes to, well, Policies, I feel the situation is slightly more murky. Would I be correct in believing that these references do not stand up to scrutiny, as even if Wikipedia was not considered by policy an unacceptable source, the direct use of a reference to Wikipedia Policy would constitute the use of a Primary Source and thus be unacceptable? NoCOBOL (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

See the second paragraph of WP:CIRC:

“ An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. ”

--David Biddulph (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, ok - thank you NoCOBOL (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post and the "Cultural impact" section

"Happy 18th birthday, Wikipedia. Let’s celebrate the Internet’s good grown-up.", an opinion piece published yesterday in the Washington Post, may possibly be relevant to the "Cultural impact" section. Voceditenore (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

joke

I want to put the COI template at the top of the article as a joke but I am too afraid to do so. Tommy has a great username (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad that you thought better of the idea. Such "jokes" are likely to be treated as vandalism, and could lead to your being blocked from editing. And note what it says at the top of this page: "This talk page is only for discussions concerning the improvement of Wikipedia's article on itself." - David Biddulph (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Would have been easily defensible. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

very not smart idea Tommy has a great username (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Just you wait for April 1st. This talk page will turn to a purple paste. Acording to admin David "Vandalism does not apply on April 1st to talk pages (but dont go too far)"BMO4744 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

am excited for april 1st Tommy has a great username (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not wrong—every single person who's ever edited it has a close connection with the subject. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"The Free Encyclopedia": Slogan? Nickname?

Is the phrase "The Free Encyclopedia" (uppercase) or "the free encyclopedia" (lowercase) a slogan or an official alternate name for Wikipedia? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

I suggest you change "called wiki" to "called a wiki" as it is currently using poor grammar. ADillon1 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit of a lengthy sentence, but it's actually correct as written. If the sentence is simplified, the important bit is "...a model (...) called wiki". It's the collective name for the content model, not a singular name of anything particular. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

Wikipedia is not working please make it work please fix it now thank you 2601:240:E480:6F66:906D:6862:18A7:A29E (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Hey there, sorry but this is not the place for this; this talk page should only be used to talk about the page Wikipedia. If you have a specific question about something on Wikipedia, feel free to ask at the Teahouse; but please be more specific as to what exactly isn't working. We'd be happy to try to help you out with any problems you may have. Best, --SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 01:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

o_0

Why is Wikipedia on Wikipedia? If you're on it you know what it is. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey ThePRoGaMErGD; it's true that most readers probably know the basics of what Wikipedia is, but this page has a lot more information than most readers would know; e.g. its history, cultural impact, etc. :-) Because of how much coverage Wikipedia has received in reliable sources, it easily meets the notability criteria for web content, and most of the time is treated like any other page. As stated in the header of this talk page, "The question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on itself has been raised many times before, and the answer is definitely yes." I hope this helps!--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 21:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias

Wikipedia is very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore E (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In what way? I would also be intrigued to find out how the 72,000 contributors from most countries in the world work in concert to maintain that bias. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Notably, WP is biased in favor of WP. We should get a non-WP editor to write this article. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019

The WordSRT (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Outdated reliability discussion in lede

The last two paragraphs in this article's lede, which discuss Wikipedia's reliability, are imo outdated. It doesn't seem reasonable to, in 2019, reference a Nature study conducted on Wikipedia in 2005, back when the project was in its infancy. Further, the praise for and criticism of Wikipedia should be referenced with more than just individual examples and primarily with more recent examples. Currently, it basically has a bunch of really old criticism, and then reflects the encyclopedia's improving reputation by just jumping to the instances where other social networks decided to use it for fact checking in the past few years. I hope some editors with the inclination to work on this page will address these issues. - Sdkb (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikkippedia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikkippedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Abote2 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiikiipedia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiikiipedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Abote2 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipidya listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipidya. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Abote2 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipeidea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipeidea. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Abote2 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Reference Works

In addition to this WikiProjects listed, would this article not also be of interest to WikiProject: Reference Works? Vorbee (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WikipediaOverview template - add to article?

A "WikipediaOverview" template (to add to an article, use the code => {{User:Drbogdan/WikipediaOverview}}) (see template below – and – at "User:Drbogdan#My awesome facts") has been developed, which may (or may not) be a useful addtion to the main "Wikipedia" article (or related articles) - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Clickable

(view • discuss)

WIKIPEDIA – The Free Encyclopedia

(Overview by Dr. Dennis Bogdan)

Wikipedia Facts

Topics of 1000 randomly sampled articles (2016).

Size of a printed version of Wikipedia (2010).

WIKIPEDIA – The 5th most popular site on the Internet, was launched on January 15, 2001 (1st edit by co-founder Jimmy Wales), is currently published in over 300 languages, has been freely available worldwide for 23 years, 10 months and 16 days – Wikipedia has 64,027,572 total articles (6,918,223 in English (stats); 260,856 in Simple English) – *VITAL ARTICLES*: 10–100–1000; *BEST ARTICLES*: 51,727; *POPULAR ARTICLES*: Last 24 hours; Last Week: Top25; Top5000 – and has (for the English version) 848 administrators and 121,250 active editors (includes over 1,400 stated PhDs and over 130 MDs) – as of 10:50, December 1, 2024 (UTC).

• Wikipedia => Is "over 90 times" the size of Encyclopedia Britannica (2021). (calc)
• Wikipedia => Is encoded in synthetic DNA strands (2019).
• Wikipedia => Is laser-etched in glass on the Moon (2019).
• Wikipedia => Is available as 7,473 Books for $500,000 (2015).
• Wikipedia => Is honored with a Monument (2014).
• Wikipedia => Is the name of an Asteroid (2013).
• Wikipedia => "Is one of the Jewels in the internet’s crown."
• Wikipedia => "Nos Auxilium Facere Interrete Non Lactaverunt."
• Wikipedia => "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's what we're doing."

I would object to adding this, as the Wikipedia article should be a neutral description of Wikipedia, not a venue to promote Wikipedia. A similar infographic-like template wouldn't be allowed on the page for any other organization, so it shouldn't be allowed here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the above looks like it would fail WP:NOTPROMO...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it could be a WP page, or an essay-type article. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• En-us-Wikipedia.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

To save other editors a click, the nomination was an apparent test edit by an IP editor, and has been closed as "Keep". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And this is why these bot notifications should have a 24 hour delay. GMG^talk 13:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Why can't we edit this?

Funny, the page in wikipedia about wikipedia says that wikipedia is the greatest online encyclopedia "that anyone can edit", and yet i can't edit it. Hmmmmmm. Dragonfyrecooldude (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dragonfyrecooldude: this page is currently protected because it has been getting vandalized. You may submit an edit request with the changes you would like and another editor will process them for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Issue over the necessity of Talk:Wikipedia/to do

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I stumbled on the to-do page after being a bit fidgety with the search box, when a result hint for the page in question came up. Based on its name, I was curious to know what were some of the future plans for Wikipedia. My prediction for what the page contained was somewhat correct, as it contained what seemed to be a to-do list with what changes are to be done with Wikipedia. It even talks about some of the yearly Peer Reviews and FACs. Well that is what it seems to have originally been intended for. Unfortunately however, as I will discuss somewhere bellow, the page was visited and overridden by other Wikipedians, as well as multiple IP users, who used the page as a to-do list for what they wanted to do on Wikipedia. Also, some of the tasks there seem convoluted and unrelated or hard to understand.

It seems that the page is originally intended for bettering the article Wikipedia, so that it can become a featured article. Thus more caution must come when changing or deleting content that is on that page; I hope you know what is the name of this website, otherwise there is an issue. Because of that, I felt that placing the page on any 'for deletion' noticeboard would be a bit wrong, as it would require a consensus from a lot more users. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the page still necessary?

It seems that either the use of the points on the page, the page itself, or the betterment of the page Wikipedia based on what is stated in the page in question, has stopped sometime in 2012. That was when a link to the issues found with the Wikipedia article was found during a FAC discussion, where it was rejected from becoming an FA. That edit happened on December 11, 2012. Linked is the diff [1]. We can consider this as being almost 6 years and 8 months ago.

Due to the long length of time that has elapsed, it can be considered unclear to whether or not it clearly depicts what are some of the improvements that need to be done to the page Wikipedia. Those two things must be taken into consideration; if none of the tasks have been done, the page or its contents must stay, or else we may loose out on some very valuable info on how to make the page Wikipedia a WP:FA level article again. Nevertheless, there are many other aspects that must be looked at before one can consider whether or not the page is still necessary or not. One of these aspects being, how much 'actually usefull' additions or contributions are being done to the discussions on the page Talk:Wikipedia, since if the page in question was to get deleted/removed the majority of these to-do discussions would move there. Unfortunately the abandonment issue is almost similar on this page as well. I looked at the Talk:Wikipedia's drop down box detailing article level status 'changes/request for changes' and the last activity listed there is of the date September 5th, 2014. On that date it says Wikipedia got demoted and/or delisted; the page Wikipedia is currently a Class-B level article.

Another major thing that worries me, if the page was to get deleted, was the amount of work that went into the page as it has been existent for almost 13 years. Now one might suggest a merge with the article talk page, however I stated somewhere bellow to why I think a merge would be a bad idea.

The first thing that one will easily notice on that page, is that it is a talk page of a page/article that is non-existent. According to what is stated on WP:CSD, it is one of the possible reasons for why a page can be nominated for WP:Speedy Deletion, however as I stated in the main section to why I think there should be an in depth discussion to what should happen to the page or its contents.

There are obviously four options, keep, merge contents to Talk:Wikipedia, move the page to Wikipedia/to do or delete. I will explain the issues and benefits of each, if they were to occur.

The first one which is 'keep' would just mean that the page should be left alone. If we are to keep the page, then there should be some major clean up and a verification process that should be done on the page, so that any tasks that have been completed be striked out. In addition, any new tasks or ideas should be added. Although in the process of keep there could be a high chance that the page could again be forgotten and eventually become abandoned like it is right now. A issue with keep is that it would go against the talk page norms where, there should not be a talk page when the page/article is non-existent. This is where the 3rd option of move comes in.

With the 'move' the issue of the talk page norm no longer holds. Regardless, there is an issue that regardless of keep or move, there must be a link posted on the Talk:Wikipedia to the page, so that it does not go into a abandoned state again. The issue of there being two places to look when looking at considerations on how to edit the page Wikipedia. This is where the merge option helps.

With the 'merge' option, the issue of the need to look at two places would not be existent. Although a new issue arises. The fact that it is a to-do list, makes the page in question be more of a informative formal way of saying what is needed to be done to the page Wikipedia, where these ideas are agreed upon by multiple users. Thus it would not make any sense for a new registered user to add something new on that to-do list, rather unconfirmed(registered) or IP users should be placing suggestions on the Talk:Wikipedia page instead. In a more clearer way, think of the to-do list as what a majority of users think would be the best for the page, where as the article talk page consists of things where ideas are placed. The likelihood that a new user, even if unconfirmed user (registered), would place a task that would be highly accepted by the community to be done to the page Wikipedia is a lot less likely than that of an confirmed user. In fact it can even be seen on the page of Talk:Wikipedia revision history that there have been vandal edits by unconfirmed users.

One may argue to why not just make Talk:Wikipedia pending changes or semi-protected? the issue is that this has been done so many times, that one may even think of comparing the log with that of the page Wikipedia or the main page itself. In fact, the most recent page protections have all been 'confirmed or auto-confirmed' protection level because of the fact that pending-changes have failed. There should be an outlet for unconfirmed users who actually want to contribute to Wikipedia via discussion. However the place where such a to-do list should be located, is a place that has a higher protection level as it would contain things that are granted to be accepted by the majority of the community.

The last option of 'delete' would usually be the best option if all the tasks on the page in question have been completed. Otherwise the 'move' or 'merge' option would be better, as some of the info contained in that page, may have been created by users who are no longer Wikipedians. Thus, the info would get lost.

I think I should stop there, as this seems to be getting a bit too long. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User vote and comments on what should happen to the page!

Vote here in this sub-sub-section as to what should happen to the page. The current options are, 'Keep', 'Move' to Wikipedia/to do, 'Merge' with Talk:Wikipedia, or 'Delete'. Optional is if you want to also vote at the same time for any protection levels on any of the pages that are being discussed or are in question. If you would like to add an alternative option, please add a sub-sub-section to the sub-section, that this sub-sub-section is in. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• (Submitter) 'Move'  : Better to keep in two places so that the difference from idea, and needed to be added is clearer. Also with two different pages, there can be two different protections. Comment to this vote of mine if clarity is needed. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Condense this RfC. As I already suggested to the author before they even drafted this RfC — copying their wall of text from AN as an RfC is a bad idea due to length. Sadly, they did not heed my advise. Simply put, this RfC lacks clarity because it is too lengthy. But it's not just length. I'm having a difficult time making sense of even their brief two-sentence "submitter" text: keep in two places so that the difference from idea — what? El_C 07:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• The RfC is far too long. I cannot see a link to Talk:Wikipedia/to do. Looking at that page shows that it appears at the top of this talk. That is in accord with WP:TODO which (indirectly) specifies that to do pages are in talk space. If the text at Talk:Wikipedia/to do is outdated, try editing it: remove items that are not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Ignore This RfC is way too long, nobody is going to spend the time to read it properly - nor should they. So there's a To Do list attached to a talk page that nobody has edited for a while - I'm sorry to be dismissive, but seriously, why do you care? Bring it up to date if you're interested in the subject, or forget about it and move on - it's not causing any disruption in article space, there are plenty of more pressing things for people to worry about. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 00:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep and update article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• TL;DR per El C. Cut this RfC down to a few sentences and more people will be willing to participate. – Anne drew 00:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding project to the definition

Hello, I propose adding the word project to the definition of Wikipedia mentioned in the article introduction. That word is added in other pages like Wikipedia:About. That distinction is important to indicate that there are policies and guidelines and that some pages or information might be incomplete, and to indicate that it is not a static encyclopedia. Generally adding that word will better clarify the nature of Wikipedia.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd reverted because adding 'project' to 'online encyclopedia' may confuse readers, but mostly because the definition 'online encyclopedia' seems both the most concise and accurate descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I would challenge that greatly, that it is the most accurate descriptor.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

To the general reading public Wikipedia is likely known as simply an online encyclopedia, or an encyclopedia, and not as a project. The remainder of the paragraph then further describes the encyclopedia and how it is produced. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the general public need to know that it is also a project and there is no reason to hide the fact here and to make it clear elsewhere like in WP:About. And I think clarity is needed here.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Was hoping others would chime in. I guess I don't really know what you mean by 'online encyclopedia project'. Officially, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that's what it's known as. Did you mean 'project' like in 'Panama Canal project', i.e., that it's a work in progress? Maybe a tweak for clarity, although the rest of the paragraph covers what I think you mean by project, but the initial descriptor "online encyclopedia" describes what the present-time condition of the work is. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

p.s. Just added 'work in progress' in an appropriate spot in the descriptor. If this sticks maybe it would relieve your accuracy concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mean it in this way, that it is a work in progress, and letting that meaning go somewhere other than in that order "online encyclopedia project" will not make the definition totally clear.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

See "Wikipedia (/ˌwɪkɪˈpiːdiə/ (listen) wik-ih-PEE-dee-ə or /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ (listen) wik-ee-PEE-dee-ə) is a multilingual online encyclopedia created and maintained as an open collaboration project[3] using a wiki-based editing system.[4]" I added two sources and tweaked the wording to verify the claim. Citations go where they verify the claim, not always at the end of each sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Everyone who edited this article is guilty of this. --Filipinayzd 10:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, but this would also apply to Humans, Canada and Earth or any other place where an editor resides, and Mammal. Among others. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

LOL --Filipinayzd 11:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Question: Is there an age requirement for account creation on Wikipedia?

Is there an age requirement for account creation on Wikipedia?

Hello everyone. I am currently wondering if there is an age requirement/limit for Wikipedia. I am under 18 years old, so I am just wondering because I like to use Wikipedia and I am mature. I have searched across Wikipedia and other sources to find any sort of information about this topic, but I just can't seem to find anything. If you see this question and have a reliable answer for this, please mention me so I can see it. Thank you.

JivingGinger (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@JivingGinger: We welcome everyone....you could read over Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors - it will give you some basics about the environment you will encounter. Then we have WP:Contributing to Wikipedia that gives an overview of how-to edit.--Moxy 🍁 01:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Outdated reliability discussion in lede

[re-upping an issue that has persisted since it was originally raised] The last two paragraphs in this article's lede, which discuss Wikipedia's reliability, are imo outdated. It doesn't seem reasonable to, in 2019, reference a Nature study conducted on Wikipedia in 2005, back when the project was in its infancy. Further, the praise for and criticism of Wikipedia should be referenced with more than just individual examples and primarily with more recent examples. Currently, it basically has a bunch of really old criticism, and then reflects the encyclopedia's improving reputation by just jumping to the instances where other social networks decided to use it for fact checking in the past few years. I hope some editors with the inclination to work on this page will address these issues. - Sdkb (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see no argument that some problems, more than brought up above, are evident. The article was delisted more than 13 years ago. Of all the projects we have it would seem that someone would want to work on such an important article to restore it to featured status. I would support just removing outdated content, along with making any other suggested improvements, that might alleviate concerns brought up when the article was reassessed. Otr500 (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"Wikiped" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikiped. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Fourth and Fifth Wall Break?

Isn't the Wikipedia article of itself kind of breaking the 4th and the 5th wall? Can someone explain? Porygon-Z (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Porygon-Z. Wikipedia covers subjects as they have been covered in reliable published sources. As Wikipedia has been the subject of a good deal such coverage in things like newspapers, magazines and books, there are sufficient sources available with which to write an article. As with any article on Wikipedia, content which is not supported by published sources is liable to be removed. GMG^talk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. If the definition of a fifth wall break is that the actors reference their own work in a show, wouldn't Wikipedia referencing itself be a fifth wall break? Porygon-Z (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but that's an issue for dramatic productions. This (Wikipedia) is an encyclopedia, not a dramatic production. MPS1992 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"Wiipedis" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiipedis. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Searingjet // talk // contribs 14:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored?

Even with a source that shows Wikipedia is censored that is being deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. It's not just censorship, but extreme censorship, where even any mention of censorship is being censored. I don't even see the point. It's not like Wikipedia is going to lose their business and donation money just because they admit they have censorship. I remember when encyclopedias used to value truth. Humanoid (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

10 independent sources were deleted in just 4 minutes. Who can read all 10 sources in just 4 minutes? QuackGuru (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Censors don't care about sources. Humanoid (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

They tried to hide it was deleted in 4 minutes. QuackGuru (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Now they are edit warring on the talk page to delete part of the section name. They can't revert all of us! QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Its strength is its weakness?

There needs to be a frank acknowledgement of proprietary bias in Wikipedia. A quick scoot thorough the talk page at 'Generation X' will highlight the problems and limitations of Wiki in resolving conflict objectively when the general public compiles an encyclopaedia.

"It's MY article" is a real problem, as is often wresting control from those who stick obstinately to an incorrect position, using Wiki 'tricks' to maintain that position when it is clearly the wrong one. Hanoi Road (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"W i k i p e d i a" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect W i k i p e d i a. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"The Free Encyclopedia": Slogan? Nickname?

Is the phrase "The Free Encyclopedia" (uppercase) or "the free encyclopedia" (lowercase) a slogan or an official alternate name for Wikipedia? Wei4Green · 唯绿远大 16:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would go with uppercase as a "subtitle". Otr500 (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It is an 'unoffical slogan' according to Wikipedia:Slogans. Our display of it is normally as a tagline. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So a subtitle that is used as an "unofficial slogan"? Otr500 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Put simply, Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, making it a terrible place to get information unless you are a dummy with no other source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.125.197 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Is not. There's sources that verify the edits. Porygon-Z (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Encyclopedia Omnispotent (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Then what's the point of the sources? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Why you can't download on Wikipedia Azmaar (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I can download on Wikipedia. If you cannot download on Wikipedia, you could try asking your system administrator at work, college, school or home about this. You could also ask for more information, giving appropriate details, at the WP:HELPDESK. MPS1992 (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Helping Wikipedia

Programmers are limited so were can help to create profile of those who aren't made please grant us this chance for programmers that i have to prove themselves though I am not a programmer but I have 10 people who are programmers. Ojeniyi ramadan (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Most programmers are not notable according to WP:GNG. When each of your ten programmers has significant achievements such that they meet WP:GNG, then Wikipedia articles will soon be created about them. You don't need to worry about this. MPS1992 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mobile apps are wrong

the most recent releases need to be updated.

Unbeatable202 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedius" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedius. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedae" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedae. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

"Wikifiddling" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikifiddling. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

"Talk:Wiikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:Wiikipedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipaedius" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipaedius. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipaedias" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipaedias. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Talk:The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

¿es wikipedia de España o de México? Ñinaméxico (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ñinaméxico: ¿Sabía que existe una Wikipedia en español? Quizás prefiera contribuir ahí. http://es.wikipedia.org. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipediæ" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipediæ. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipædiæ" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipædiæ. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TJRC (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedai" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedai. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Bias" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia Bias. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Pedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

I request an edit so it can be more better and improved! 2A00:23C6:2983:A100:44A6:5908:C1AB:FEE8 (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y". – Thjarkur (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Cebuano quicklink

"Cebuano" links to a list of Wikipedia language versions instead of to the Cebuano language page. This should be fixed ASAP.

Feraligatr221 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not broken. The page at "Cebuano Wikipedia" redirects to the list. See the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cebuano Wikipedia for further detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that the languages were meant to link to the English Wikipedia pages for the languages. My apologies, I should've checked. Feraligatr221 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Lightbreather incident

@WildStar and Chromersv: I agree with the removal of the text:

In 2014, a female editor who requested a separate space on Wikipedia to discuss improving civility had her proposal referred to by a male editor using the words "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one".

It's pretty clearly meant to be inflammatory without providing any of the context surrounding the incident. It doesn't even make sense ("had her proposal referred to by ..."? Although I suppose that's fixable). But even in The Atlantic article, it's an example meant to inflame without examining the context. That article itself has no less than five corrections, not to mention the incorrect statement that the page the statement was made on was set up to discuss the proposal, even though it was simply WP:AN. Anyway, I realize it's hard for regular WP editors to write about WP neutrally, but in any other context, this would be a clear case of WP:UNDUE weight, inappropriate for a broad article when giving basic characterizations about one facet of the article topic. Thoughts? Anyone else? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis and Chromersv: My revert was to undo a deletion that simply deemed the contents as an “insignificant incident”. The fact that it’s been there for a while probably speaks volumes. Good luck with your content dispute though, and feel free to undo my revert if you feel so inclined. WildStar ^talk 22:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Article

Isn't this article inherently a COI and therefore against Wikipedia policy? --Hillelfrei ^talk 02:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei, perhaps for Wikimedia Foundation employees, but not for volunteers. Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: That would be WP:PAID. This is WP:COI, any external relationship with the subject of the article, and obviously Wikipedia editors have a COI on Wikipedia. Now, obviously I don't this article is about to get deleted, I'm just wondering if anyone has thought of this before and what people's have opinions are on the matter. Hillelfrei ^talk 04:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Found previous discussion Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 18#Isn't this article a COI?, interesting. Hillelfrei ^talk 04:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It is very much a special case. In the normal case of a COI, Wikipedia is a neutral third-party hosting an entry about an Better Mousetrap, Inc. Visitors to the article would not ordinarily expect editors to a bias for or against Better Mousetrap, Inc.

When a reader of Wikipedia comes to an article about Wikipedia itself, they may even naturally expect that the editors harbor a positive bias for Wikipedia and it may be reflected in the article. This would not come as a surprise, unless someone came across the article published somewhere else, unattributed (which is a violation of the licensing).

I am willing to hear what mitigation strategy you would have. How would you create a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia that does not involve Wikipedians making direct edits to it? Perhaps we can have an "exchange" with Encyclopedia Dramatica, they can write our article and we'll write theirs? Elizium23 (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, you say "against Wikipedia policy" but there is no policy that prohibits COI editors from making direct edits to the articles where they have a COI. It is "strongly discouraged" and many admins and editors frown on it, but it is not prohibited, and not against policy, ergo this article is not against policy in any way, shape or form. Elizium23 (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Wikopedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikopedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Wikopedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Wicipǣdia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wicipǣdia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Wicipǣdia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

lock to F

PROTECT TO F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.136.59.236 (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

please put the wikipdia in the format of mp4 122.179.21.235 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

The article currently states that:

Special interest groups have engaged in edit wars to advance their own political interests. Defending Israeli settlements in the West Bank, numerous pro-occupation groups have launched "Zionist editing" campaigns. In 2010, the then-director general of the Yesha Council and former Israeli Cabinet Minister Naftali Bennett described their goal as "not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to include our point of view".

There are anti-Israel groups that have been hi-jacking any possible forum to demonize Israel.

It is absolutely mind boggling why a pro-Israel group would be singled out of all the special interest groups that are engaging in spreading their point of view on Wikipedia.

This reference to pro-Israel groups should be removed, unless, somebody can explain why a pro-Israel group (who claim that their goal is only to include their point of view on Wikipedia) has been turned into the poster child for "Edit Warring" on wikepedia. --Cts499m (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I can understand why it looks that way (obviously there are numerous cases of friction in wikipedia editing), however it did get written about in independent sources and involved a senior politician. I agree it'd be good to add some other examples so it did not look like a pro-Israel group was being singled out. Problem is, the article is pretty long already. It would be good to get some other input here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Updating "year in edits" video

This article currently uses the WMF's 2014 end-of-year video. There's a 2019 one on YouTube, but I can't find it on commons. Does anyone else know where it is, and if you find it, can you please insert it to replace the old one? Sdkb (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Kiwi (iPhone application)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kiwi (iPhone application). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#Kiwi (iPhone application) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

QUESTION: Worthy Wikipedia Article(s) To Add Worthy Wikipedia News?

Following news article was recently reported in The Washington Post - Not clear at the moment where on Wikipedia would be a worthy place to add the reference - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

etymology og Wikipedia

Second paragraph, first two sentences: "Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, and was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.[14] Sanger coined its name[15][16] as a portmanteau of the words "wiki" (Hawaiian for "quick")[17] and "encyclopedia"."

This is misleading; it suggests Sanger 1. was the first to use the Hawaiian word in a computing context 2. that Wikipedia is the first "wiki." At the very least, the word "wiki" must have a hyperlink to the entry on Wikis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.144.147 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done--occono (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia editor decline

Since it's 2020, i.e. almost 2021, the subsection "English Wikipedia editor decline" should be extanded by noting how accurate the given prediction turned out to be. If this is not possible, the subsection should be removed, as it is no longer relevant. --Јован Јеромела (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How is August "almost 2021"? Love people who exaggerate to try and bolster their argument! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.119.162.27 (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that the studies cited in the subsection in question were all published around 2010, and it's now August of 2020, it is now 95% of the way to 2021. Please try to focus on improving the content, not on nitpicking the verbiage of other users to stroke your own ego by undermining their perceived "arguments". 69.172.176.96 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.119.162.27 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Column of space

What's up with the large column of white space on the righthand side, starting with the "Language editions" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It was an issue with {{Largest Wikipedias/graph}}, I've fixed it. – Anne drew 15:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot

Since this is Wikipedia as a whole and not the English Wikipedia, I feel like the screenshot in the infobox should be [wikipedia.org] and not Main Page. Thoughts? GeraldWL ✉ 10:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems pretty obvious to me. --Mossypiglet (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not to link an only-text mode of visualization at the end of Wikipedia web pages?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 27 § Why not to link an only-text mode of visualization at the end of Wikipedia web pages?

"Wikipedia in media" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia in media. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 10#Wikipedia in media until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Print Wikipedia consists of 106 printed volumes, not 7,473

The article states,

in July 2015, Wikipedia became available as 7,473 books for $500,000

This is not correct as per the Print Wikipedia page which claims to have printed only 106 volumes out of the "hypothetical" 7,473 it would have needed to print the entire contents of Wikipedia. ExplodingSubwoofer (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you for picking up the obvious mistake (made a couple more edits to the sentence portion as well). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

Change subtitle “Milestones” to “Significant Growth” 2605:6000:1026:C893:154F:B2F4:22FD:36CA (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That section is not just about growth but about declines and other milestones. RudolfRed (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

RE: A sentence in lead, "Facebook announced..."

The lead currently has this sentence:

"Facebook announced that by 2017 it would help readers detect fake news by suggesting links to related Wikipedia articles. YouTube announced a similar plan in 2018."

I think we might want to update this or remove it if needed. I don't really have the time right now, but thought I would point it out. --Pythagimedes (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Pythagimedes, I just added a hidden text comment before seeing this. Per WP:ANNOUNCED, we should use the date Facebook actually started doing so; saying "would by" is outdated. I do think it's a helpful concrete indicator of the way Wikipedia's reputation has changed in the 2010s, something the lead otherwise struggles to get across (I just added one sentence on it, but more modifications are needed). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It'd also be good to consolidate Facebook YouTube, and any other major sites doing similar into a single sentence. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Predictions of the end of Wikipedia --> Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merger proposal to discuss: Predictions of the end of Wikipedia --> Wikipedia

An admin recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Wikipedia as "Keep", later adding a clarifying statement for more discussion at a talk page. Closing admin concluded, "The result was keep. Obvious consensus not to delete the content outright. Whether it should be merged or left alone is a question that can be answered outside of AfD." A conflict arose and further discussion is therefore needed, as an editor summarily redirected the page into Wikipedia, with no further discussion about this action. Bringing to discussion, here, per WP:MERGE. Right cite (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, clear consensus for "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Wikipedia. Per reasons already discussed in detail at the deletion discussion page. Right cite (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• This is premature. I have no particular desire to merge any content from there to here, although I have no opposition if anyone wants to do so on their own (I was advocating for a plain redirect). Nonetheless, there was a clear consensus at the AFD not to keep an article in place. I'll be listing it at DRV in the near future, so this should probably wait until then at least. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: The subject doesn't particularly fit into the Wikipedia article, and the decision at AfD was Keep. I fail to understand why the AfD nominator seems to think the decision was completely opposite of what it was. Normal Op (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  As I've said elsewhere, everyone that actually looked at any of the sources in detail came to the same conclusion – that none of them were making any predictions about anything, and that none of them were talking about the end of Wikipedia. The topic has zero sources supporting it, so a keep wasn't warranted. Strength of argument trumps thoughtless keep voting, regardless of the actual numbers. People were willing to support selective merging of basic statements elsewhere, hence the reluctance for an outright deletion, but as far ass the article itself, there's nothing there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Merge. But not to Wikipedia. This should be merged to Criticism of Wikipedia, because that's clearly what it is. A prediction of WP's failure is a criticism of its model and its usefulness. This article doesn't need to be a stand-alone spin-off.

Beyond that, Criticism of Wikipedia is where the merge !votes at the deletion discussion[2] wanted it to go. (The closing notes indicate that those editor's !vote was considered a "keep" for the purpose of closing the deletion discussion, so they're a facet of that consensus.) ApLundell (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge at least for now. I suggest that time is needed to see if sources can be found. If that fails, I support a merge, but to Criticism of Wikipedia, where some of the content would be appropriate. --Bduke (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, clear consensus for "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Wikipedia. This is a worthwhile topic and a useful and apolitical discussion of both sides. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. If we are genuinely interested in continuous improvement (and I would assume that is all of us), it is good to know the criticisms of Wikipedia. Some sunlight is often a good disinfectant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Obviously we have to be a bit careful about WP:NAVEL when dealing with topics like this, but it's obvious from the sourcing that this is a topic discussed repeatedly by independent reliable sources, and I see no valid reason to shoehorn this anywhere else or delete it.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - Agree with Normal Op the content here really doesn't fit in to Wikipedia, Given a few people had !voted Merge it was only right PMC made a comment on it however the AFD was closed as Keep and as such shouldn't have been merged without a prior discussion here. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The closer made it very clear that the consensus was to "keep" the content, but there was no consensus for keeping the article. ApLundell (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    • ApLundell, there is no such option/interpretation of a "Keep" close. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Normal Op (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Of course there is. There was no consensus for deletion, therefore the discussion at articles for deletion was closed rather than relisting. Any further discussion about merge vs keep can be handled at a discussion outside AfD, and is being done so right here. The fact that someone tried to go about redirecting without obtaining a consensus on it first is not down to my close. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not dissing your close, PMC. What I mean is that an AfD is to decide on the question of whether an article is kept, deleted, redirected or merged (WP:DISCUSSAFD). A keep decision means the article. I know you tried to explain further, but such interpretations as ApLundell's are not within the usual meaning of the word "Keep" for an AfD, and such interpretation would be extraordinarily rare as to be outside the scope of what "Keep" means in a deletion discussion. If you meant Merge or No consensus, PMC, then you should have said so in the beginning, because Keep at close means one thing to 99.99% of the editors on Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
          • I meant nothing of the sort. I meant exactly as I said - no consensus for deletion, and keep vs merge can be discussed at a process outside AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Regardless of whether there's a box like that to tick on some official form somewhere, that is the consensus as summarized by the closer. ApLundell (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. IMO there is significate worth in keeping the article. There's enough substance in the article as to bog down an article. So, keep article, don't merge to either article. --intelati^talk 16:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge. I really think this should be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia. That seems far more appropriate than merging into this page. I also recognize that it has already been decided to keep this page, but this article really seems like it runs afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. But that ship seems to have sailed, so it seems more appropriate to merge into Criticism of Wikipedia instead. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, per all the above. Glee^anon 21:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, when this is closed it should be copied to Talk:Predictions of the end of Wikipedia where the discussion should be taking place. Glee^anon 21:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• No merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as this is significant enough to warrant its own article. Quahog (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge It doesn't make sense to me that the article for Wikipedia would have predictions of its end Tommy has a great username (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Mild oppose merge This article needs some cleanup, however it certainly justifies itself as a sub article, however it's importance is questionable. Vallee01 (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge. Perhaps to the Openness section. GeraldWL 10:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge, but selectively to Criticism of Wikipedia. To say this is anything more than criticism supports WP:SYNTH and POV-pushing. You can’t look at criticism and jump to the conclusion that it implies the end of a business. Would we go to the Siemens article and say that the ridiculous amount of negative coverage added to the lead about the bribery scandal implied the company is coming to an end? Or Microsoft with their history of anti-competitive legal challenges? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• While the pages overlap, I disagree that they cover the same content. Predicting the end of something isn't inherently a criticism of that thing. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree with User:Elliot321. Recognition of Entropy is not necessarily criticism. We can judicially notice that everything has an expiration date, even if it is unknown or unknowable. These articles cover different ground entirely. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per all above. SMB99thx my edits 06:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge, but to Criticism of Wikipedia instead. Hunter 16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I could support merge, but then it would be a case of spliting off again due to WP:WEIGHT. Or delete most of the content, which I don't think is justified. -- GreenC 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support but merge to Criticism of Wikipedia instead per all above. Azpineapple (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Gender Bias" Reads (Readability Issue) as the Primary Criticism of Wikipedia

I am outlining a structural concern within the article (Wikipedia) as written.

Third Paragraph Line One acknowledges criticism of Wikipedia but it does so incorrectly and therefore a change is needed

Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias

What the above sentence is saying, in its placement and context, is that gender bias is second only to accuracy.

This differs from The highly referenced Article "Criticism of Wikipedia"

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political and national lines. In addition conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven application of policies.

The main point of that article as written; Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes.

Gender Bias is not mentioned until the third sentence, as placed it is of minor importance. Its importance is further diluted because other concerns are mentioned.

The main point may be in the second sentence of the paragraph, The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing.

Conclusion Recommendation - Request for Comments

A contra-view of the topic in the form of criticism should be and is included in the third paragraph.

Wikipedia should maintain a NPOV when it talks about itself

The first sentence of the third paragraph should be changed as to be consistent with (the more accurate) "Criticism of Wikipedia Page" Zugzwangerone (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Your comments would be easier to understand if they were ten times shorter—try omitting all the words that are unrelated to text in the article and a proposal to change that text. Use bold very rarely. For your information, this article follows the recommendation at WP:LEAD where the lead (introduction) does not repeat the references which are later in the article. Those references are at Wikipedia#Sexism which points to Gender bias on Wikipedia. A widely followed principle of articles is known as "other stuff". That means that other articles do not necessarily dictate what should happen in this article. Instead, any proposal for a change here should be based on its merits and the reliable sources to be used (which do not include any other Wikipedia article). Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Spelling Error in the Wikipedia Wikipedia Page

"The article remained uncorrected for four months.[76] Uncorrect should be incorrect" Adam Rasool (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Uncorrected" is an actual word.Crboyer (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Crboyer, I will have to disagree with that. Dictionary.com does not state uncorrect as a synonym of incorrect, and when I do a Google search a grammar bot immediately switches "uncorrect" with "incorrect," the definition being archaic. As "incorrect" sounds more natural and is a more common word, I will have to agree with Rasool. GeraldWL 13:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, did you even bother trying to enter "uncorrected", which is the word in question here? It is a perfectly good English word: "correct" is the verb, and to leave an article "uncorrected" is to avoid correcting it. "Incorrect" would change the meaning of the sentence, and be, well, incorrect. Elizium23 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, "in" and "un" have similar meanings, and don't see how it changes the meaning of the sentence. "Uncorrected" is, additionally, making the prose unnatural. Now I get the difference between "incorrect" (*uncorrect) and "uncorrected," however I prefer "incorrected" since it's more natural-- "uncorrected" sounds... stiff. GeraldWL 14:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, update: I have decided to self-revert, as "incorrected" turned out to be false. English, motherfuck! GeraldWL 14:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible links for expanding

At meta:Wikipedia_20/Media, there are some links on research about Wikipedia that might help us expand this page. See particularly https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-wikipedia-keeps-political-discourse-from-turning-ugly and https://hbr.org/2019/07/are-politically-diverse-teams-more-effective. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia began with its first edit on 15 January 2001, two days after the domain was registered[2] by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Its technological and conceptual underpinnings predate this; the earliest known proposal for an online encyclopedia was made by Rick Gates in 1993,[3] and the concept of a free-as-in-freedom online encyclopedia (as distinct from mere open source)[4] was proposed by Richard Stallman in December 2000.[5] Ravirajkr04 (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done -unsourced. 14:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

The logo needs a update as there is new logo with 4 squares the colors yellow with a person and a book and color blue with a computer on the top and the bottom has a red color square with a phone and a green square with a blue puzzle globe 71.169.176.57 (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And your problem is?Crboyer (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that logo temporary, anyway? Hawksbydesign (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hawksbydesign: Yes, though the actual duration is still under discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Duration. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Could someone please correct the spelling of Portuguese in the cartogram depicting the quantity of articles by language? Specifically, "Portugese" should be "Portuguese". As a Portuguese speaker, it is a bit embarrassing to find this on the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia. I'll be happy to fix this if someone explains how it is done. Mgmt1969 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mgmt1969:  Done by downloading the SVG file, editing in Notepad++, and re-uploading it to Commons as a new version. A text editor is good enough for a spelling correction, but anything more would need a proper editor such as Inkscape. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Small typo in footnote #67

Footnote number 67 - Harrison, Stephen; Benjakob, Ome (January 14, 2021). "Wikipedia is twenty. It's time to start covering it better". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved January 15, 2021. - contains a small error, the second author's name, according to the piece is, "Omer" not "Ome"147.161.8.216 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

WP 20

Happy birthday Wikipedia. It's made possible by the editors; and it is for the readers. We did it together.

• Kelly, Heather (January 15, 2020). "Technology: On its 20th birthday, Wikipedia might be the safest place online". Washington Post. The world's largest online encyclopedia has learned lessons from fighting misinformation for two decades
• Kent, German (January 15, 2020). "In a post-truth world, we need Wikipedia more than ever". CNET. Commentary: Wikipedia celebrated its 20th anniversary today. The free encyclopedia may not be exciting, but its neutral, volunteer-driven content is incredibly valuable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

🔒

This page is a prime target for vandals, I recommend locking it. ESBirdnerd (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@ESBirdnerd: this page already has a level of protection on it. If there is actual vandalism occurring by many people you can request a change at WP:RFPP. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok ESBirdnerd (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Recursion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=1001701273&oldid=1001623438

I added Recursion to the See Also section. Recursion is when an object is defined in terms of itself, so does the Recursion link fit?

The Epicness9000 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Policies and laws | US law not applicable in EU

Under 'Policies and laws' is being stated: "Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, copyright laws) of the United States and of the US state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located." From a European Union perspective, generally speaking, this is not correct. In general, under many EU jurisdictions, Wikipedia-content is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction applicable in the town where the author of the content is living or the town where the plaintiff is living. Here international private law (US: conflict of laws) is guiding and/or the general terms of use of the Wikipedia-version of that specific country. Now that this english-language page is a mother-page also for other than-english-language-editions, it would be great to make the text here "work' for the global community. Thanks, keep up! 89.246.158.62 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:1129:701:34B2:DAC6:4FF0:97F8 (talk)

In an official statement from its staff on URAA discussions in the communities, US Wikimedia Foundation Inc. seems to take the legal position that the Foundation is to be held responsible for all content and editors are being discouraged "to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA." On the other hand, Wikimedia General Terms of Use (version June 16, 2014) state: "You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws." and "WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification."

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

2402:4000:1081:35D:A97A:EA00:5341:42F6 (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

PLS specified changes with examples.--Moxy 🍁 04:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"WikiMe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WikiMe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#WikiMe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"GeoPedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GeoPedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 17#GeoPedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

2nd Pronunciation in introduction

Hello,

/ˌwɪki-/

File:en-us-Wikipedia.ogg is used for the above spelling/pronunciation of "Wiki" but the audio itself states "Wikipedia". If there is a way to provide multiple pronunciation files for Template: IPAc-en then I think that should be done for the 1st spelling listed, to include both files. Regardless, I feel this file should be changed to a recording of just wik-ee-.

Feel free to tell me I'm incorrect! ritenerek^talk :) 12:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed article request

This page is vandalized too many times, so I say we put an extended-confirmed lock here so we can protect this page from vandalism. What do you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua's Number9 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua's Number9: you can request this at WP:RPP. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Elaborating Upon "Wikipedia is subject to manipulation and spin"

Searching the internet using the term, "Wikipedia bias" returns links to a large body of diverse sources, many of which are authoritative, including reports of serious research and peer review. The only description of Wikipedia bias I have found in this article so far is two sentences:

"A 2008 article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is subject to manipulation and spin."

"Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias."

The article on Ideological bias on Wikipedia contains a description of a study that developed quantitative measures of the frequency of terms associated with bias.

Considering the world's dominant search engine relies on Wikipedia for adjudicating controversy when evaluating the relative credibility of different information on a topic, a more comprehensive description of Wikipedia bias would be useful.

At this point, I would like to ask a few questions about this suggestion:

1. If I have a few sentences with citations on the subject of bias in Wikipedia that would add to the statements already present in this article, would it be appropriate to share those sentences on this talk page, inviting comment, before adding the sentences to the article?

2. Could the subject of bias in Wikipedia potentially develop into an article of its own?

3. If Wikipedia existed in a time when world literature was dominated by descriptions of the world as flat like paper instead of round like a ball. Suppose at this hypothetical time in the distant past, someone found a way to persuade the people serving as editors of Wikipedia the world is a ball and not like a piece of paper, contrary to the authorities and social graces of the time, which prohibited under penalty of public humiliation, thinking or saying anything contrary to the "fact" the world is flat. Would Wikipedia's policies demand support of the dominant view of the time, i.e. the world is flat, even when they know it is false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danallenhtn (talk • contribs) 07:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

For 1 and 2, there is Criticism of Wikipedia, which is a page that should be mentioned/excerpted on this one, per WP:Summary style. On 3, per WP:NOTLEAD, we follow what reliable sources say. I'm not sure how the point relates to removing criticism in the lede, but Wikipedia should reflect current, reliable consensus on a topic and there is certainly enough about Wikipedia's own bias for that to be mentioned here (more can be found on WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias if you want to know more). —Wingedserif (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request : International view

This article tries to write about Wikipedia International, not the english language WIkipedia. Nevertheless the english Wikipedia is taken as the central point of viewing at things. It would be good, when slowly the text would be re-written from a more international perspective. Thanks! PeriodicT (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

Isn't Wikipedia a primary source of fake news? Why then does this section misrepresent the nature of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.134.107.58 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

All claims in Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable to reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources for your claim? — Newslinger talk 03:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, would you like me to send you my book? Or is it another one for Big Tech's book burnings? Hey, why is it that anything centrist on the Overton window of last decade called 'far right' on your website? How come it perpetuates defamation against publications and authors such as Solzhenitsyn? Why not go ahead and do an apriori invalidation of any source that points out the obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.134.107.58 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 03:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikiwikipedia

Is there a Wikipedia of Wikis? Qwerfjkl talk 21:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There kind of is, actually. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page 173.71.121.53 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Also:

• List of wikis, which is not limited to the Wikimedia movement
• Wiki (disambiguation), which is not limited to collaborative websites.

You might also want to look at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Differences_between_Wikipedia,_Wikimedia,_MediaWiki,_and_wiki for the differences between "wiki", "wikipedia", "wikimedia" etc.

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Outdated reliability discussion in lede

The last two paragraphs in this article's lede, which discuss Wikipedia's reliability, are IMO outdated. It doesn't seem reasonable too, in 2019, reference a Nature study conducted on Wikipedia in 2005, back when the project was in its infancy. Further, the praise for and criticism of Wikipedia should be referenced with more than just individual examples and primarily with more recent examples. Currently, it basically has a bunch of really old criticism, and then reflects the encyclopedia's improving reputation by just jumping to the instances where other social networks decided to use it for fact-checking in the past few years. I hope some editors with the inclination to work on this page will address these issues. - Sdkb (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb I agree, I also think the paragraph should not start with criticism only but a balanced statement such as "Wikipedia has received praise for its unique structure, culture, and absence of commercial bias but has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and for exhibiting gender and political bias." The next 1/2 sentence should be criticism and the next 1/2 sentences should highlight positive. See Reliability of Wikipedia for an overview of more recent studies on Wikipedia but there doesnt seem to be one of the same breadth as the 2005 study. --hroest 16:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hannes Röst: I’ve fixed the praise and criticism part of the article based on your suggestion, although more updated sources might still be needed. X-Editor (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideological bias?

From the article ideological bias on Wikipedia, it is not immediately clear to me that an ideological bias truly exists on Wikipedia as a general trend, in the same rather indisputable manner as racial bias and gender bias. If it does exist, it is also unclear to me whether that trend is left- or right-wing (or perhaps slanted on another axis, i.e. pro-libertarian?). Rather, the general takeaway from that article seems to be that less important, less-viewed articles, where a single editor can have more impact, tend to be more biased than more important ones, where consensus leads to neutrality. That slant is then on whatever POV the editor themselves pushes. There is also not much information regarding ideological bias in this article, which there would need to be for inclusion in the lead or elsewhere. I invite more discussion on this topic. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Discouraged in Education

Hi all, the article seems to be outdated in the section "Discouraged in Education". While, in the very early years, the most common attitude of teachers / professors towards Wikipedia was "Don't use it", instructors have been integrating Wikipedia into their teaching on a broader scale since 2009 (think of "Wikipedia in Education" as a global phenomenon, given that volunteers in many countries started "Education Programs" from 2010 on). Wikipedia being "discouraged in education" therefore seems to reflect the current situation inappropriately and I'd like this to be changed, in particular as the article receives more than 30,000 views each day. Full disclosure: I'm a long-term Wikipedian and I currently serve as the Executive Director of Wiki Education. Please let me know if you're comfortable with me proposing changes, as I'm obviously both biased and knowledgeable about the topic. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

In the first sentence of the third paragraph (“... but has also been criticized for its perceived unreliability and for exhibiting systemic bias, namely geographical bias, racial bias, gender bias against women, and alleged ideological bias.”), the word “alleged” should be removed. 73.43.84.241 (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

Wikipedia is not free. It states that it is above, but there is a) nothing that indicates what “free" means and b) there is a cost involved in editing Wikipedia (people have to spend time editing).

In other words, wikipedia is not free. Either unlock everything so that every mod checks everything or change the understanding of the word ‘free' such that it indicates it's purely monetarily online, NOT free. I order to be consistent, thank you! 8.9.83.186 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NOR... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Number of Wikipedias mentioned in lede ?

How about mentioning the currently still active number of 339 WP (language) editions – instead of the current lede, which mentions the total number of 352 WP (language) editions that have been active (without mentioning eleven have since been closed !) ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

And of course the same question about the opening sentence of section "Language editions": "There are currently [ ! ? ] 352 language editions of Wikipedia (also called language versions, or simply Wikipedias).
Should the 'NUMBEROF' template not be set to 'active' instead of the (indiscriminate) 'languages' setting ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Also known as "wiki"

Many people i've spoke with call the website "wiki" I would add it. Into the introduction. Also shortened as "wiki". Most people get it when one says "I searched on wiki about Normandy, or Slovakia...etc.

--Joujyuze (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

statistics, active, ip

Dexxor the statistics should be then referenced with proper citation templates. I'd argue those statistics establish notability, and as such should be referenced by secondary reliable sources instead. Now on the IP statement, that needs to be sourced as well, otherwise they can be removed.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has unreliable, primary, vested, and general conflict of interest sources

Wikipedia has unreliable, vested, and general conflict of interest sources. For example, in the lead section Wikimedia Foundation and Reputation X are used for establishing notability though statistics. Wikimedia Foundation is clearly in WP:COI. Reputation X has vested interest Wikipedia-wise (go to its website, and see that they offer Wikipedia-related services), and doesn't even list the authors (it's just "Reputation X"). These sources shall be removed, and its supporting content as well. For now, I'll include templates of unreliable sources being used.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn (talk · contribs) I already added it to the talk page, and nobody answered. So I guess, take it to the notice board. These sources can't be used like that.Hfnreiwjfd (talk)

Thanks Hfnreiwjfd, missed this. Probably needs to be up a few more days to generate comments, not everyone checks watchlists daily. I agree with the rep. X edits, the foundation sourcing is an interesting question and should have more input. I'd think the foundation may be considered and have topic expert status but a good point. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn That's alright. Please, keep the issue templates. The discussion of the usage of these sources, which includes wikimedia foundation, should be taken to the notice board. I likely won't do this, but would be great if someone else do.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

With the page activity this should attract interest of other editors. In the states this overlaps with the July 4th holiday weekend so it may be slower to be spotted. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Users here can have bias towards keeping content or not. So, this should be taken to the notice board instead where they deal with issues like these daily.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hfnreiwjfd. Good call on removing Reputation X. However, while you're right that we need to take care with primary sources, they aren't banned outright on Wikipedia. You can read the policy here. Although it requires careful judgement, primary sources can be useful in a number of different situations. In the lead, the foundation is being cited for a factual summary of Wikipedia statistics, this is a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" and it's reasonable to assume that the foundation is a good authority on Wikipedia statistics. The important thing is that primary sources aren't used to support analysis, evaluation or interpretation, which isn't the case with the text you removed. It's also not being used to establish notability, as you suggested in your edit summary – here the notability is established by the breadth of media coverage about Wikipedia and the statement about its prominence in Alexa rankings in the first paragraph (which cites both The Economist, the secondary source for the analysis, and Alexa, the primary source for the statistics). Jr8825 • Talk 14:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Is wikimedia foundation a reliable primary source? Doesn't it conflict with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Besides, wikimedia foundation source is used to establish notability to and exemplify with English Wikipedia, which should be done with secondary reliable sources instead. This should be taken to the notice board.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Wikipedia are not the same entity. The foundation is a separately run charity and information it publishes isn't crowdsourced in the same way as information on Wikipedia itself, which is largely what WP:NOTSOURCE is about (that, and circular sourcing). As well as citing the foundation for statistics, there are several times in this article where Wikipedia policies and pages are directly cited. Someone had the foresight to add the following point to NOTSOURCE which covers this situation pretty well: "An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)." By all means feel free to take this to a noticeboard, although I'm not personally convinced there's much of a problem here. Jr8825 • Talk 15:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Thanks for detailing. Still, Wikimedia Foundation source is used to exemplify/notice the English Wikipedia, which should be done with secondary reliable sources instead. The New York Times article mentions the English Wikipedia, but it doesn't mention that English Wikipedia is the largest, and the statistics are from the Wikimedia Foundation source.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Using the foundation's numbers is an appropriate use of a primary source. The fact that the English Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia isn't directly supported by any citation there, but that's acceptable since it's unlikely to be challenged (it's easily verifiable as the data, generated automatically by bots, can be found here). Also, citations aren't always required in the lead if the same information is sourced in the article body (see MOS:LEADCITE). Yes, it'd be preferable to be citing a published book on the history of Wikipedia, but given the transparent nature of Wikipedia's data it's not really a problem. Jr8825 • Talk 16:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. But it is a problem if it doesn't verify with the inline citations, if it doesn't cite reliable sources, and exemplifying and giving notability with WP:COI sources conflicts with wikipedia guidelines. An user requested peer review for this article to then elevate it to good article. So, the standards for this article should be kept high.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipidia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipidia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#Wikipidia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KamranBhatti4013 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Problematic use of sources referencing Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia sister projects

Wikipedia has references to Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia sister projects. For example, many references to Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the sections Wikipedia#Openness, Wikipedia#Content policies and guidelines, Wikipedia#Governance. Wikipedia#Content policies and guidelines mostly references Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which is contrary to the recommendation of WP:RSPRIMARY. This is problematic because it goes against Wikipedia:No original research, WP:USERGENERATED, and WP:RSPRIMARY. Besides this increases the chances of Circular reporting, giving these topics artificial notability. So, the proposition is to either rewrite these contents with reliable secondary sources, or just delete content referencing Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects. Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So Wikipedia seems to have conflicting guidelines WP:CIRCULAR that seems to allow this usage to an extent, but "The article text should make it clear the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is aware of the potential bias." What a joke wikipedia policies are, giving privilege to Wikipedia.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• By now, I hope you have read the replies to your similar query at WP:Verifiability, and better understand the nuances involved. To summarize: there are very few situations where it is appropriate to cite Wikipedia… but there are some. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  I made the same point above. Jr8825 • Talk 17:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Many parts of Wikipedia violates WP:CIRCULAR, WP:PRIMARY, etc

The article has many statements self-referencing Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and so on. These statements don't make it clear in prose that the statements are according to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc, which violates WP:CIRCULAR. Some statistics don't even use citation templates while self-referencing Wikipedia. Also, there are paragraphs that mostly self-reference Wikipedia, which is undue weight, etc, violating WP:PRIMARY, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:WEIGHT, and so son. So I propose that someone fix those issues, or remove those statements that are violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hfnreiwjfd: If you'd like to find some secondary sources and have a go at reworking sections, feel free. The best thing to do if you think there's a problem on Wikipedia is to fix it yourself, since other volunteer editors will be focused on things that interest them (or are pressingly urgent). Here are some links: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 22:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"Blending"

Don't see the purpose of this. I saw blending, said "huh?" hovered over it and saw the link to portmanteau – then it made sense. In any case according to us blend word is a different thing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read the lead paragraph of portmanteau (sounds like a word from a spelling bee), it says that it is a blend word. The purpose for using "blending" rather than the p-word rests on understandability. Readers shouldn't be confused coming upon an unfamiliar word when a common word does just fine. Especially so soon into an article, it will lose readers as the "huh?" portion of their brains kick in. "blending" adequately describes what occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we link to blend word instead? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Portmanteau seems the better page of the two in describing the concept (the blend word page is itself a form of definition-jabberwocky) but the word, created as a nonsense word by Lewis Carroll, can best be stripped of its uncommonality by using the common word "blending". Although a link to any page doesn't really seem needed, as "blending" stands on its own, "portmanteau" contains the essence but not the familiarity. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd personally find "portmanteau" more immediately clear than "blending". But I suppose it's small fry. Jr8825 • Talk 11:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Should the lead sentence (and short description) really include the word "free"? I get that Wikipedia's slogan is "The Free Encyclopedia", but the word "free" really seems to be promotional in this case. Google Search is also "free" in the same manner and that's not mentioned in the lead sentence. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point, and have extended it to the full link free content which does carry specific meaning as a descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia on Wikipedia

Why? 37.78.140.73 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Why not? 331dot (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Loveland and Reagle placement?

Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that have accumulated improvements piecemeal through "stigmergic accumulation".

This seems out of context in the Milestones section. Does it belong there? (Did someone consider it relevant to WP's early growth?) – AndyFielding (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wikimedia Foundation

According to this template, Wikimedia Foundation has 5 current "people." Is that good/clear enough? If you have an opinion, please join Template_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation#Who's_in_and_who's_not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Editing page from 28.09.21

Brief description. I added a new subheading to the Wikipedia article, titled "Current Status," which was unfortunately missing before.

If, before that, the article provided information mainly for 2007-19, I provided a more updated one - with references to relevant sources. (For example, the global ranking of the encyclopedia's attendance has changed significantly since January 14, 2017, according to the same Alexa.com source cited in the article. If previously Wikipedia was in 5th place, then by February 2020 Wikipedia ranked eleventh in the world by Internet traffic).

In addition, I propose to consider the "current state" section of Wikipedia as one that needs to be constantly updated (possibly once a year) according to new statistics. --Shaban Roman Petrovich (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Brief description. I added a new subheading to the Wikipedia article, titled "Current Status," which was unfortunately missing before.

If, before that, the article provided information mainly for 2007-19, I provided a more updated one - with references to relevant sources. (For example, the global ranking of the encyclopedia's attendance has changed significantly since January 14, 2017, according to the same Alexa.com source cited in the article. If previously Wikipedia was in 5th place, then by February 2020 Wikipedia ranked eleventh in the world by Internet traffic).

In addition, I propose to consider the "current state" section of Wikipedia as one that needs to be constantly updated (possibly once a year) according to new statistics. --Shaban Roman Petrovich (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.154.160.20 (talk)

Extended-autoconfirmed-protected

As (Arguably) most important article on this site, don´t you think it should be more protected? This has likely been asked before, but shouldn´t this be more protected? Or would that discourage new users from thinking it is a free to edit site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lallint (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lallint: Extended confirmed protection is only required when the page in question is controversial and would otherwise have a high level of vandalism. This page most likely does not require it. --The Tips of Apmh (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Confused

The video about Wikimania seems to be repeating itself. Can it somehow be trimmed or is it meant to keep repeating itself? Xboxsponge15 (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure BillTyn94 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andyzade1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejuarez860. 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheTrollMaster. Peer reviewers: TheTrollMaster. 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing history

The launch and growth section mentions Slashdot articles increasing early visibility, which I seem to recall reading, but for me personally, my first memory of Wikipedia comes from 2001, from June-September, when it first became visible as a higher ranked Google search result, which continually brought me to the site. Surely, I can’t be alone in thinking this was a significant factor in its growth, yet the article doesn’t say anything about it at all. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Summary style

I'm inclined to apply WP:SS here, starting with section Wikipedia#History, which would be replaced for an automatic excerpt of History of Wikipedia. fgnievinski (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Open access coverage of Wikipedia-cited research (and conflict of interest)

I am a co-author on a paper that would be relevant to this page, but conscious of coi as author and employee of UoL. Grateful for thoughts/advice: Exploring open access coverage of Wikipedia-cited research across the White Rose Universities DOI:10.1629/uksg.559 Nick Sheppard (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@OAnick: Initially, I'd suggest including it in WP:List of academic studies about Wikipedia. After it accrues a significant number of citations, I'd suggest including it in Academic studies about Wikipedia, too. I'd only recommend citing a study in the main article, Wikipedia, if there are multiple reliable sources supporting the same finding. fgnievinski (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"The Other Wiki" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Other Wiki and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 5#The Other Wiki until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

To encourage new editors and donators!

This is one of the most read page on Wikipedia; common sense should apply to encourage donations and newcomers in the lead sentence.

Some people may not realize that individual donations are really usefull and may think that companies, states are the largest sponsors of Wikimedia (m:Fundraising/2020-21_Report).

My proposal to be added at the end of the lead sentence: "Anyone can donate or contribute as an editor to Wikipedia." Antoine Legrand (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

? Wikipedia does not use in-line text advertisements. A good faith idea in concept, a good faith non-encyclopedic missed three-point play in practice. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Facebook and Youtube using Wikipedia to combat fake news

The unbiasedness of facebook and youtube would have to be established before their invocation of wikipedia as a reliable source would support the claim that these companies are actually combating bias rather than upholding their own using a similarly biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.98.135.43 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

Are you going to add this link? 20th Anniversary There was a Wikipedia:20th anniversary that happened in last year and there is nothing related to 20 years of Wikipedia when I was viewing and reading information about Wikipedia. Also, don't forget to add information about this site's 20th anniversary. 2601:205:C001:EA0:6C94:1A44:E909:7FB6 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"alleged" used inconsistently

The intro now reads, "criticism for exhibiting systemic bias, particularly gender bias against women and alleged ideological bias." Why is one time of bias prefaced with "alleged", the ideological bias, but the other, gender bias, not? Using "alleged" is already redundant since the entire phrase is the object of "criticism". But to add on top of that an inconsistency does nothing but, amusingly, ironically, demonstrate ideological bias. 2601:640:8900:67A0:F15D:CEDE:8C07:81FC (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ideological bias is far more subjective than bias against woman. Finding out bias against women is as simple as seeing what percentage of biographies are about women. It's much harder to do the same for ideology. You could try to look for certain keywords, but even that leaves out context. X-Editor (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding "Wikipedia is this very website".

It goes without saying, but I want to go for realism and have Wikipedia imply that Wikipedia is the webiste people are on when they read this article. It just seems artificial to not say "We are Wikipedia" you know? NDEdminson (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@NDEdminson, you've added this four times over the past several days and been reverted by three different editors. This is slow-motion edit-warring; please don't add it back again without gaining consensus. valereee (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't claim the reader is at Wikipedia. It can easily be false. We allow reuse of our articles. Readers may see it elsewhere, e.g. at a mirror of the whole Wikipedia or somebody copying specific articles or part of an article. It doesn't even have to be a website. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#This Wikipedia article discusses ..., While Wikipedia is not a ..., Edit this page ... says: "Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or referring to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia, should be avoided where possible." PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia

Include on this wikipedia page? thoughts?

National Security Agency and American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia - The NSA and the scope of state secrets privilege may be in front of the Supreme Court next term. Source: https://www.grid.news/story/technology/2022/09/27/the-aclu-and-the-nsa-may-soon-square-off-in-the-supreme-court-over-wikipedia/ September 27, 2022

"The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, last month asked the (Supreme Court) to hear arguments on its lawsuit over the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international phone and email communications. The organization, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, has been fighting the NSA in court over such “upstream surveillance” for the past seven years." ... "Wikimedia contends that given this surveillance, it cannot ensure the confidentiality of the tens of millions of people who read, edit and communicate about Wikipedia, one of the largest repositories of human information to ever exist."

Aeryn Palmer, legal director of compliance at the Wikimedia Foundation, said...“When we think about what we might be collecting from anyone who visits the site, when we think about how we do research with our readers or with our contributors to better understand what sorts of features they might like to see and how they want the projects to evolve, we’re continually thinking about how we can best protect their privacy,”

May1787 (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia 20th Anniversary not being included in this article

Why is this a controversial edit about Wikipedia 20th Anniversary? There is nothing wrong with this. It is all about the milestone and anniversary. Apologies, my reply got reverted. Anyways, lets start the discussion. --2601:205:C001:EA0:6C94:1A44:E909:7FB6 (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Can somebody reply to this post? 2601:205:C001:EA0:CC3:6FE7:74E4:BC05 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

All organizations have anniversaries at regular intervals. The lead says launched January 15, 2001, so anyone can easily compute anniversaries. Did anything significant happen at the 20th anniversary? You want to link Wikipedia:20th anniversary but it's a project page, not an encyclopedia article, and it has virtually no information. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article though User: Python Drink (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

My project page link explains that page names starting with "Wikipedia:" including the colon are not articles in the encyclopedia. In this case it's a page about the encyclopedia but it's not a part of the encyclopedia itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I actually just noticed your reply (coz you didn't ping me). Lol I have no idea what I was thinking when I said something so dumb. In my defense though, I was a total novice to Wikipedia back then. — Python Drink (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t need to be in Wikipedia to be a part of the article explaining Wikipedia, it just needs to be relevant and important enough. A sentence or 2 about it would be fine, but I don’t think it needs to be longer than that, as the person had just stated that there is virtually no information. Good news is that the source is just the page itself, so there shouldn’t be any disputes about that. There could be the possibility of the article being updated to add more information, as its relatively new. I’m sure that a page on anniversaries exists somewhere. If anyone could find it, let us know. Senomo Drines (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia project page is not really a suitable source, per WP:PRIMARY. I don't think the 20th anniversary needs to be mentioned at all, it's unimportant and entirely predictable, and was not a widely celebrated event.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia was launched in 2001. It had the 1st anniversary in 2002, the 2nd in 2003, the 3rd in 2004, the 4th in 2005, the 5th in 2006, the 6th in 2007, the 7th in 2008, the 8th in 2009, the 9th in 2010, the 10th in 2011, the 11th in 2012, the 12th in 2013, the 13th in 2014, the 14th in 2015, the 15th in 2016, the 16th in 2017, the 17th in 2018, the 18th in 2019, the 19th in 2020, the 20th in 2021, and the 21st in 2022. Riveting stuff but let's not overexcite the readers. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, this Wikipedia articles is only for changes and important events that happened, not anniversaries since it is controversial. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is too large

this article is too large and takes a few seconds to load even on normal wifi or 4g , 5g Led8000 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess that is because Wikipedia has a lot of history! Helloheart (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What's a few seconds in the quest to learn more about the world's best encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022

5.217.84.36 (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --SamX 07:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 28#Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing protection

Can a talk page be semi-protected, or protected in any way? Cjjjkscratch (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The section above was blatant advertising, as you suggested in a reply, so I deleted the section. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)