Talk:Wikipedia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleWikipedia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
On this day...Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
April 1, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 1, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
September 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 25, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 12, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 15, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
July 21, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
July 26, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
November 7, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2014Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
September 5, 2014Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 21, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
February 4, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 12, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 15, 2005.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article

Paragraph 1 (rankings); suggested edits (rhetorical)

Grammar school handed me a loathsome fixation on parallel structure before sending me on my way, so I’m compelled to suggest a revision of this sentence in the first paragraph: “It has been ranked consistently one of the 10 most popular websites in the world, ranks number 7th as the most visited website on the Internet, and, as of 2023, ranks as the 4th most viewed website by Semrush.”

My issue is with “ranks number 7th as the most visited…” and “ranks as the 4th most viewed.”

At a minimum, “ranks as the 7th most visited” would treat the problem, but seeing that this is the Wikipedia page for Wikipedia itself, I’d propose a bit more:

“It consistently ranks as one of the 10 most popular websites [on the Internet]*, and as of 2023 it is ranked the 4th most viewed and 7th most visited website on the Internet by Semrush.” []* redundant unless needed for accuracy (websites implies internet, as far as I know)

My main gripe is that we change “number 7th” to “7th” or “number 7,” and if I’m really lucky, that the structure be more consistent and pleasing to a keen reader’s eye. JizzyRizz (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JizzyRizz: I've taken on board your suggestion as I re-wrote this sentence. I removed the reference citing '4th most viewed', as the ranking excludes some sites, and it just generally introduces confusion. It's also currently listed as number 6 on the most visited list, up from number 7. I've retained the 'in the world' wording, as I think it's often used to qualify these things (for some people, Internet does not imply world). Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gm 384c 41.113.185.219 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Italic 41.115.100.73 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harder to find links

Links on the Wikipedia page, and all of them, turn black when clicked instead of purple, which makes it harder to find them again and get to the topic I want after I have lost it. Can this issue be fixed please? -Different Hums 2406:3003:2077:173E:FC5E:50AC:A8EA:6BC9 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already being worked on. In the future, please report technical issues at WP:VPT - this page is only for discussions concerning the improvement of Wikipedia's article on itself, as the banner at the top says. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I reported here because it was my first time with an issue. I didn’t know there was a page for technical issues until you pointed it out to me. 2406:3003:2077:173E:58F3:72B2:3A81:68F1 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's no matter on my mobile. The links are blue as normal. 2001:EE0:4BC4:4240:71D2:A29:A5C4:100E (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. It remains blue still after even clicking links. Maybe my phone works well. 2001:EE0:4BC4:4240:71D2:A29:A5C4:100E (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore: Is This Or Is This Not A Current Endeavour?

Folklore: Is this a current endeavor? I have seen it in one instance but when I looked for it, I couldn't find it as an endeavour; only as pages of the many different cultural references and other relevant information, including detailed definitions and information therefore. Please, if this is a current endeavour, contact me. I am quite interested in this topic! Reikimom333 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Folklore and category:Folklore, that should lead to many other pages on Wikipedia. Quite a good collection here. Thanks for checking and not giving up (probably not the page for it but who knows). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEO of Wikipedia

@Randy Kryn Hi, CEO at its article is defined as

A chief executive officer (CEO) (executive officer, or just chief executive (CE), or as managing director (MD) in the UK) is the highest officer charged with the management of an organization – especially a company or nonprofit institution.

The highest officer is a very important person that many decisions should be made with her. The introduction of such an important person in Infobox is very helpful. But the highest officer does not exist for Wikipedia, but maybe its duties are delegated to its upper officer.

Wikipedia is hosted and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related projects such as Wiktionary and Wikibooks.

Making such decisions for Wikipedia as well as Wikicommons and others is done by Maryana Iskander. And introduction of her in Infobox is very helpful. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hooman Mallahzadeh. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a non-profit organization. You are thinking of the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns, funds, and maintains the encyclopedia via equipment and legal assistance. But there is no CEO of Wikipedia, the title does not have a place in the day-by-day and case-by-case managing hierarchy. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn I have a question:
  • If someone wants to propose an idea for Wikipedia, for example, he proposes a new Logo for it (because he is making a more informative one) who should he talk to? Probably Maryana Iskander makes the final decision. Am I wrong?
It proves that these duties are delegated from "CEO of Wikipedia" office to "CEO of Wikimedia" office. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. But no, she could not change the logo, the Wikipedia community as a whole would have to discuss and "vote" on such a change (as far as I know anyway, maybe I'm mistaken but I would think that the CEO stays as hands-off Wikipedia as possible. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos for a history of the globe-logo). Others who work for the Foundation, and would be working under the CEO, may read this and hopefully comment. May be worth pinging Jimbo Wales, who would have organizational insight on your question and interest in adding the CEO to the infobox. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede mention of systemic bias criticism

Should the lede mention systemic bias criticisms? They’re not a really prominent part of coverage of Wikipedia. Zanahary (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. Whether people talk about it or not, it's still a significant aspect of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by “whether people talk about it or not”? If it’s not a prominent theme in Wikipedia’s coverage in reliable sources, we should reflect that here. Zanahary (talk) 05:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But people DO talk about it. A lot. There's thousands of articles on Scholar about this problem. It's the most significant criticism of WP and shouldn't be removed from the lead for WP:NPOV. Larataguera (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert last edit seems fine

Censorship... country's goverments seems redundant. Better restore to censorship... national governments. 2001:EE0:4BCA:B460:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks, your concern makes sense. This was a new edit and have asked that it be talked-paged if the editor wants to return it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]