Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

this article of wikipedia is really a good article. it must be rated as a featured article.-wiki tamil 100

Full Protection edit request on 22 June 2015

Perhaps full protection is an order or anything higher? — 24.2.133.105 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that would go against the goal of Wikipedia, allowing only admins to edit info about themselves etc? Eddowii (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lih and the future of Wikipedia

Andrew Lih is an expert on Wikipedia and he fears a threat to Wikipedia's future. I put Lih's opinion onto the article making it clear it's his opinion. Below is what I wrote. This needs to be in the open.

This is an opinion and should not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.28.126.18 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing with mobile phones

Andrew Lih maintains editing Wikipedia with smart phones is difficult and this discourages new potential contributors. Lih claims several years running the number of Wikipedia editors has been falling and alleges there is serious disagreement among existing contributors how to resolve this. Andrew Lih fears these two situations could imperil Wikipedia’s long term future.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia New article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

please add Category:2001 introductions because it was created in 2001.--216.186.185.230 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 216.186.185.230 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Question: This is a general question that's more for other passing editors. This page is already in Category:Internet properties established in 2001, which is a sub-category of Category:2001 establishments. How does "establishments" differ from "introductions", and would it be redundant to include both categories? Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if we could say that "introductions" might take place months or even years before something (a sports event, a political entity, and so on) becomes "established"; however, looking at the Category:2001 introductions vs. Category:2001 establishments, it is difficult to see anything but redundancy and the need to merge them. I could be wrong. – Paine  15:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I agree with Mz7's suggestion that it would be redundant. Bazj (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia scope change

FYI, see a proposal at WT:WikiProject Wikipedia to change its scope -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian ban of the website

http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/russias-ban-on-wikipedia-ends-as-abruptly-as-it-started/

What do you think of including this? The Russian government stopped access to all Wikipedia sites yesterday but reversed the block after a day. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it was only one day I don't think that it is necessary to add.--76.65.43.144 (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Governance section

I was looking over the section on Governance and was troubled by the lack of 1) comprehensive information about the various formal roles which exist on Wikipedia and 2) criticism of the system as it currently exists. Hoping to fill that in a bit, I drew up this mock draft of a new Governance section, but I thought it best to submit it for review and revision before making any significant changes myself. Feel free to comment and modify as you see fit! Bonjourleworld (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Are there any objections to gently integrating some (or all) of this language/content into the article. I want to make sure I won't be stepping on anyone's toes here! Bonjourleworld (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Intro

In principle, Wikipedia’s system of government operates off of a base of equal and open access, as well as consensus-driven democratic decision-making. Conventional managerial systems often seen in the worlds of business and politics are absent. However, a collection of "formal roles" fulfilling certain functions and providing general oversight have led some to speak of a "parahierarchy" within the community. Three primary roles exist—each one with a greater level of permissions than the last—, as well as several other permissions sets assigned automatically to Stewards and selectively to Bureaucrats and Administrators. Criticism against this system have been leveled by academics and community members alike. These have principally targeted "lack of clarity" concerning governance structures and the concentration of power in the hands of an emerging elite.

Primary Roles

Stewards

At the top of this organizational structure are the stewards. As of February 2015, they are 37 stewards active across all Wikimedia projects. Elections for new stewards are held on an annual or bi-annual basis and users from across the entire Wikimedia community are eligible to vote. Prospective stewards must obtain an 80% approval rating in order to be selected.

Candidates for stewardship must be administrators on at least one Wikimedia project and are generally expected to have had a history of inter-project work and experience holding positions of trust. Name visibility is a significant asset, as is multilingualism and fluency in English. Of 37 stewards, only one is monolingual in English.

Stewards are granted the capacity to "perform any task that any other user group can" and at their own discretion. However, they are obliged to follow Wikipedia policy in doing so. Their permissions extend across all Wikipedia language versions and Wikimedia projects. As stewards are expected to act as an independent voice representing the entire Wikimedia community, they are restricted from employing their enhanced editing rights on their project of origin.

Because of their high-profile role and extensive permissions, Stewards are required to provide proof of identity and documentation demonstrating they exceed the age of 18 to the Wikimedia Foundation to obtain their position.

Bureaucrats

Bureaucrats are administrators tasked with the power to alter user permissions and usernames. Their primary role is to assign administrative permissions to users approved through the RfA process for administrator status. Bureaucrats are not entitled to use their own discretion in assigning enhanced user rights, but rather are required to bow to community consensus as expressed through voting procedure. While they play an important role in the internal workings of the Wikipedia community, their job tends to be simplistic.

Even in major projects, the number of bureaucrats tends to be small, the only exception being the English version on which there are 32 as of September 2015. Candidates for bureaucrat-ship are elected according to the same 80% support benchmark as for stewards. Because bureaucrats do not fill a time or labor-intensive function, each project only requires so many bureaucrats. As a result, the number of applications to RfB and the number selected have been in decline for some time.

Administrators

Administrators are the front lines of Wikipedia governance. They are comprised of "experienced users" whose job it is to monitor and regulate community activity; this applies to both article editing and behind-the-scenes interaction. Administrators have the ability, among others, to ban/block users, rollback edits, and apply protections to articles. Candidates for higher levels of responsibility are drawn from this pool of users.

Any registered user has the right to request adminship through the RfA voting process. However, successful applications almost always meet certain expectations. Applicants are traditionally users with good standing in the community who have a diverse background in vandalism control, article contribution, and Wikipedia policy formation. The number of edits the prospective administrator has made also weighs heavily on the selection process, being the most common reason for an unsuccessful request.

Administrators perform a very broad range of jobs across a single Wikipedia project. As a result, the number which each project has does not tend to reach a de facto cap as there’s always more administrative work to be done. That being said, the number of new applications for adminship has declined so significantly in past years that the phenomenon has attracted the attention of major news outlets and information science researchers alike.

Specialized Functions

Checkusers & Oversighters

CheckUsers are members of the Wikipedia community with the ability to view the IP addresses of users. Their job is to determine whether or not a single individual is editing on multiple accounts, typically to better identify and deter article vandalism.

Oversighters are granted the power to conceal past edits and the usernames associated with them in an article’s revision history. Once done, concealed edits can only be viewed by other oversighters and stewards (who automatically are granted oversight permissions). The process by which an oversighter expunges a past revision is referred to as "suppression" and may only be used under a select and enumerated set of circumstances. Accountability is ensured by other oversighters and the Arbitration Committee.

Although no formal rule requires it, checkusers and oversighters are by tradition administrators. However, not all administrators are checkusers or oversighters. To whom these responsibilities are assigned is determined by the Arbitration Committee. By virtue of their access to sensitive information and the consequent need for discretion, users with these permissions are required—like stewards—to provide evidence of their identity and age to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Rollbackers

After registered users, rollbackers are the first rung upwards in the Wikipedia governance system. These are users entrusted with the ability to roll back a page to an original version with the click of a button. Rollbackers’ number one priority is to identify and reverse vandalism in a timely manner. As such, projects tend to have a large number of users with this permission and expected qualifications are not high. Rollbackers are not appointed by consensus but by administrators who themselves have rollback abilities.

Criticism

Most criticisms of Wikipedia management target problems stemming from the project’s ostensibly-structureless governance system. Wikipedia hosts a vast archive of information and an equally massive community of editors constantly adding to, modifying, and removing from it. When combined with a lack of clarity about who controls what, one critic asserts that the need for regulation simply outstrips the ability of administrators to provide it.

Vandalism control, in particular, has represented a major problem for the project. To combat it, various policing measures have been established over its lifetime which, in turn, leave a great deal of discretion to administrators and rollbackers. Some critics have noted this allows for the disproportionate "accumulation of power in one section of the Wikipedia community." They go on to say that administrators have consequently become not only "enforcers of policy," but have also begun to make "‘moral’ decisions about user behavior."

Researchers have observed that members of the community at several different levels share outside critics’ concerns about Wikipedia’s system of control. One unregistered user was cited as saying that founder Jimmy Wales created the "structureless of tyranny," another comments on the relative lack of permission-holder accountability systems.

A culture of technocracy has been labeled a developing problem for the Wikipedia community. According to one researcher, the complex system of rules and regulations, in addition to the concentration of power in the hands of those who best understand them, creates an environment in which "editors are dominating the process, to the detriment of the more expert contributors of articles, and growth has stopped.

References

Conflict of interest?

Doesn't the existence of this article contradict Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest? Is it all possible to contribute to this article without having a "close connection with the subject"? Finsternish (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Going back through the archives, I can tell this subject has been beaten to death. In fact, I'm quite sure that you're going to receive a comment to the effect of "Look back through the archives, we've already agreed this is fine." However, I've done some pretty extensive searching and I'm inclined to agree with your objection, despite the many arguments that have been raised to support the existence of this article. Some users have cited the lack of financial incentive motivating bias. Yet, such a motive is not required by Wikipedia's own conflict of interest rules for a COI to exist. Others have asserted that, given Wikipedia's size and importance, failing to provide an article about it would also be self-reference. Ok, but self-reference and conflict of interest are not precisely the same issue. Still others have claimed the Wikipedia community is the most reliable source of information on itself. By that argument, COI's are non-issues as those most closely connected with the subject at hand (i.e. those with COI's) should be the ones writing about them. The most convincing argument I came across was that a COI does not exist because the interest of Wikipedia contributors (i.e. to create accurate, unbiased content) align with the creation of an accurate, unbiased article on Wikipedia itself. However, that position neglects the extremely high likelihood that contributors would have other interests, namely to project the best possible image of the project to the world at the cost of omitting information about its less rosy qualities. I'm not necessarily opposed to a Wikipedia page on Wikipedia myself, but I think this topic needs to be more critically addressed, preferably with an essay or other statement of policy making an argument more convincing and better-reasoned than those provided thus far. I've seen at least one user claim that, if bias was a problem with this article, one would see more discussion of it on this page. However, I believe the very fact that this discussion reemerges time and time again is evidence of precisely that. Dismissing further discussion on this topic by saying its an issue that's already been decided starts to resemble dogma, something which I think most Wikipedians would agree is contrary to the project's aspirations and values. --Bonjourleworld (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed completely. I am not inherently opposed to a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia either, but if it will remain then the policy on conflicts of interest should be revised in such a way that it treats every subject equally. The same rules should apply to everything; otherwise you end up with a glaring defect at the very heart of Wikipedia: it claims neutrality while practicing the exact opposite. This is about the integrity of the project. Finsternish (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been beaten to death multiple times. Nobody with any financial interest in Wikipedia is supposed to edit the article, nor is there, really, any evidence that any supposed 'COI' has had any negative effect on the balance of the article. In fact the article includes criticism of Wikipedia pretty much to a fault. And if, even so, there was a major problem with it somewhere (where?), even if it was being deliberately excluded from Wikipedia, news of this would appear in the press pretty soon. Wikipedia is sufficiently high profile journalists would publish; they love that kind of thing.GliderMaven (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The most obvious effect that this conflict of interest has is that it makes it obvious that Wikipedia cannot subject articles about itself to the same level of scrutiny that it subjects every other article to. Which points to a broader lack of neutrality: there is nothing at all neutral about treating high-profile subjects by different standards than low-profile subjects, especially when that high-profile subject is yourself. There is nothing more obviously indicative of a conflict of interest than the fact that this article, and this article alone, is allowed to violate Wikipedia's policies. This would, of course, be a very boring subject for the press... the press would rather report that Wikipedia had done something blatantly sinister. It's not about what you can or cannot get away with, though; it's about integrity. Finsternish (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What qualifies something to have its own Wikipedia article?

Hi Ive been using Wikipedia for a long time but Ive just newly created my first page on Solus Linux. I`m wondering what are the main criteria for qualifying a place, person, organization, historical event, etc... for its own Wiki page. For example there`s a very small business, a bodega as they are called, in my city Waterbury, CT. I feel making a page on the bodega (shop) and the history of it`s owners would be a cool page to have to link from the Waterbury Connecticut Wiki article. If I were to interview the shop owners, take photos, etc, would that qualify for a Wikipedia article?UnitedStatesCentralIntelligenceAgency (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability is the main criteria. But you interviewing and taking pictures would be original research which is not allowed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2015

Could you change the external link for (http://wikipedia.org) to internal link (en.wikipedia.org)?
Or possibly

Languages

• English
• ...

114.240.194.132 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussion in the archive here. Inomyabcs (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015

wikipedia INFORMATION NETWORKING SITE.. 59.99.68.225 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. There is nothing meaningful about what you have written. Deli nk (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation link needs correction

---

Hi folks. Reading about this I found this.

1-- In section "Scientific use":

"(...) In particular, it commonly serves as a target knowledge base for the entity linking problem, which is then called "wikification",[343]..."

The link for this citation opens citation no. 343 correctly, but the PDF link is wrong.

Old link http://www.cs.unt.edu/~rada/papers/mihalcea.cikm07.pdf

New link http://www.cse.unt.edu/~tarau/teaching/NLP/papers/Mihalcea-2007-Wikify-Linking_Documents_to_Encyclopedic.pdf

 Done Finished #1, working on #2

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

---

2-- Also the link references Citation no. 349 which doesn't exist (points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#cite_note-wikify-349), even though it does open Cit. 343.

Cheers--NachoLibre2013 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NachoLibre2013, I believe I was able to fix issue #1. Please verify. There are 347 references in the reference list, plus there are are 6 ref notes, for a total of 353. ProveIt reports 351 refs. Many of them uneditable with the ProveIt tool. reFILL finds no ref errors. Citation Bot finds no ref errors. I'm not spotting anything.

Can you elaborate on the issue a bit more? For now, I am vexed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit! Please excuse my lack of knowledge about the way Wiki counts citations, I thought there was meant to be a 1 to 1 correspondence between the hover text no. and the actual citation no., hence my 2nd suggestion, but I infer from your response that this is not the case. I'll learn about the Wiki citations system next time :o). Have a great day!--NachoLibre2013 (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2015

Good day ! :-) Please consider changing the name "Wikipedia" to mean something relevent and goodItalic text, in the language in the particular page ?!

14.97.64.110 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2015 (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. Cannolis (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Maps

I like to use Wikipedia to research lots of history but my biggest complaint is the lack of maps. When I want to read about, for example, Moldavia, the first thing I'd like to see is where I'm reading about! Unfortunately, most of the Wikipedia sites don't even have maps or if they do they are buried deep in the article. Solri89 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015

wikipedia has a new logo please see the top its has a banner saying 5,000,000 articles 65.175.243.206 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Your point being? For your information, it's not Wikipedia's permanent logo. It's just a temporary logo to celebrate the milestone. Chamith (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Refutation of Silly Misconception

Don't you think that somewhere in the intro section it should be EXPLICITLY stated that "Wikipedia" does not mean "Wicked Encyclopedia", which is a persistent and long-lasting misconception especially among the computer- and internet-illiterate? While no regular user of the internet still believes this (I hope), many many people who do not use the internet regularly still believe this. I have met several of them just over the past few months. I think stating this next to the section that talks about the true origins of the name "Wikipedia" would be useful. Also, the section does not define what a "Wiki" is, and it should because many who are not regular users of the net have no idea what that word means. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.200.193 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The article addresses possible misconceptions as to the etymology of "Wikipedia" by providing it's actual etymology. To quote the article: "Sanger coined its name, a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia." Openflower (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

...and my second point, about the article not defining the word "wiki"...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.200.193 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the article already has a footnote in the sentence that Openflower quoted that explains the meaning of "wiki". Alternatively, readers can just follow the link to wiki in the sentence if they don't know what it means. CabbagePotato (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2015

Under the section "Impact," there is a picture with the caption, "Wikipedians mmeting after Awards ceremony." Please change this caption to "Wikipedians meeting after Awards ceremony," because the word "meeting" is currently misspelled. 72.179.62.139 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

Founded in 1846, the Smithsonian is the world's largest museum and research complex, consisting of 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoological Park, and nine research facilities. The Smithsonian has a center for specialized technical collection research and conservation for all Smithsonian museums and collections, Museum Conservation Institute (MCI). MCI brings unique analytical capabilities to Smithsonian researchers, including a central mass spectroscopy instrument core and advanced technological capabilities, and these services are available to Smithsonian units at no charge. In addition to having the MCI as a conservation resource, each of the 19 museums and galleries have internal conservation staff that provides myriad services; e.g. conducting research, responding to threats that will affect cultural heritage objects, developing and using less invasive and less damaging materials and procedures for collection conservation, providing technical information, advice and assistance primarily on matters pertaining to the museums and galleries areas of expertise, etc.

References

See Also

Museum Conservation Institute

gom:Wikipedia

On the left hand side, under the Languages section, there is a gom:Wikipedia. On clicking it, it goes to link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gom:Wikipedia. Why do we have it?
14.139.242.195 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

Hi, first time editor on a big protected page.

I just want to change the colors on the Language Editions bar graph. Right now, they are all dark purple and blue, and make the blue hyperlink text impossible to read. I'd like to change them all to be light green. Safibn (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone attempting to fix this should consult WP:COLOR. Specifically: "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". The default link colors can be found at Help:Link color. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 06:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: @Safibn: thanks for your suggestion, I agree the colours in this graph are awful. However, this is tricky, but this is not the correct place to request a change, since the graph actually lives in a template on another page, Template:Largest Wikipedias/graph, and is linked into this page with {{Largest Wikipedias/graph}} found in this page's source code, and that template itself calls a number of other templates to calculate the colour based on a formula I'm not familiar with. Anyway, the change can't be made from this page. I think the best course of action is to request this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Please see this thread in a minute. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Update: the village pump thread got buried and didn't draw any attention, so I've deleted the formula and changed the background colour to light gray. Changing to light green was problematic because there's a script commonly used by editors which colours links depending on the target, and links to redirects are light green, so if the background was light green then they would disappear. There would be the same problem for several other colours, so I just made it grayscale. Hope that works, and Safibn thanks for the suggestion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

103.46.203.200 (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Blank request, marking as answered to close -- samtar ^whisper 10:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

I wish to edit a Wikipedia page that explains, in detail, American Girl Group; "TLC"'s upcoming 2016 studio album. Oohonthetlctip (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe there's an article for the album yet, but TLC (group) should be the place to go for now. It's not protected at this time Cannolis (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia begging in spite of rampant censorship

Wikipedia continues its practice of demanding and begging for money donations while at the same time censoring every edit and reverting every change in articles. 100 Wikipedia monderators and admins control the content of every article. Please, never donate any money to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.220.25.26 (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If that were true, those 100 wikipedians deserve a lot more money. 98.117.255.23 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I wanna share something on wiki but how? Dyari hassan (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please ask these questions on the Help Desk page. This page is NOT a forum about Wikipedia itself, it is a talk page about the Wikipedia entry about Wikipedia. Thank you. Smock42 (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016

I would like request access to edit this page so that I may add more in detail information about our president. I would like to tell the world a little bit more about Barack Obama. 17:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The dimension of Kailash Prakash Stadium Ground?

Why there's information about the dimension of Kailash Prakash Stadium Ground on the main template?? Keivan.f^Talk 09:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Just a simple date change. Launched January 15, 2001; 14 years ago TO Launched January 15, 2001; 15 years ago HeroCorey (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a bug in the {{Start date and age}} template, which is somehow calculating it as "14 years" (eg. January 15, 2000 (2000-01-15), January 15, 2001 (2001-01-15), January 15, 2002 (2002-01-15)). I'll raise it on the template talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I've stepped it down to just a {{start date}} template, if {{start date and age}} is generating a factual error today. --McGeddon (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Remove the ";14 years ago" or update it, since it's been 15 years now. It's a bit redundant imho. Bladorthin (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It should update automatically - I've tried a nul edit to try and nudge it - but that hasn't worked. Rather than removing the automatic updating, I think we should wait until it does it itself. - Arjayay (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess it takes about one day in order for the {{start date and age}} template to update, since "January 15, 2001 (2001-01-15)" currently now shows the date as 15 years old, not 14 anymore. 96.255.166.6 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090216015857/http://yupnet.org:80/zittrain/archives/16 to http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/16
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090330141810/http://www.grillini.it:80/show.php?4885 to http://www.grillini.it/show.php?4885
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070220095907/http://brandchannel.com:80/features_effect.asp?pf_id=352 to http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=352
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203021430/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov:80/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101126184904/http://www.faz.net/s/RubCF3AEB154CE64960822FA5429A182360/Doc~E7A20980B9C0D46E99A9F60BC09506343~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html to http://www.faz.net/s/RubCF3AEB154CE64960822FA5429A182360/Doc~E7A20980B9C0D46E99A9F60BC09506343~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060116022451/http://www.techcentralstation.com:80/111504A.html to http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071107052908/http://www.emorywheel.com:80/detail.php?n=17902 to http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=17902

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir/madam,

Thank you for this wonderful information source. In your section on the Vedas, it is mentioned that these scriptures were compiled around 1,500BC by Veda Vyasa. In the section on Veda Vyasa, it is mentioned that Vyasa lived in the third millennium BC. Could you please clarify that this information is correct.

Thank You, Vijay Singh Wikipedoa Subscriber as vijays710@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakcosingh (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2016

id like to fix this page 204.81.64.175 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Does not include a "complete and specific description of the request". — xaosflux ^Talk 19:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia , you don't look a day over marvelous

Wikipedia is POWER at your fingertips. Knowledge IS power..that is why to know EVERYTHING, would be death. Imagine a life, where nothing more is new & there is no question you don't know the answer to...That , would be death of power. Happy Birthday Wikipedia !!! ( I don't have a Twitter social media account, ergo... I couldn't share my 💜 for Wikipedia ! This is why I've added this message. -27) SweetLime27 (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for keeping the gift of learning, ALIVE... If we only spent more time on sites like this, as opposed to all the Social Networking that is basically a platform for our EGO. We post our faces, our meals , & our bragging rights. I'm not going to learn one VALUABLE thing from any of those half eaten burrito pics, but I WILL learn something from any number of the pages in Wikipedia ! Keep on teaching .....and reminding us that the World is far more united and yes, even sharing that lunch pic selfie is far more than what we could connect to a few decades ago! Keep up the awesome! SweetLime27 (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

Jacsjx (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No clear request was made. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Graphic overload

I had removed several graphs that simply overload the page with a confusion of images. The purpose of graphs is so that people can more clearly see the data, but I feel that the plethora of graphs makes it impossible to get a clear view. They all don't even fit on the page. @Engineering Guy: thinks I'm wrong and has deleted my removals. See [1]

I'll suggest that folks look at Edward Tufte and perhaps data visualization. The current page would be an excellent example for Tufte to show (according to his ideas) what *not* to do with graphs. Please see the sections on Wikipedia#Language_editions and Wikipedia#Wikiprojects.2C_and_assessments_of_articles.27_importance_and_quality, pure overkill. I hadn't deleted the multi-pie charts File:User - demography.svg in the Language section, but they probably should go as well.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia#Language_editions section, I can agree to replacing the logarithmic bar chart (showing top 20 language editions) and pie chart (showing top 10 language editions) with a single bar chart or pie chart, provided:

• it shows data of top 20 language editions,
• areas (of bars in bar chart, or circle sectors in pie chart) are directly proportional to numbers of articles, and
• it is automatically updated on a daily basis.

The current bar chart does not meet all the above requirements (since the bar areas are logarithmic, and not directly proportional). The current pie chart also does not meet all 3 requirements (since it can show maximum 10 data points, not 20). So, I think both should be retained. No harm in that.

In the Wikipedia#Wikiprojects,_and_assessments_of_articles'_importance_and_quality section, the table alone shows only numerical data. It is difficult to gauge any interesting or meaningful information or pattern when data is presented in this format. Graphical representation of data in pie charts and bar charts helps to see the information clearly. I do not think it is an "overload" or "overkill". It all fits on the page, at least when seen on desktop. But yes, improvements would be made if these pie charts and bar chart were also automatically updated daily.

Regarding Edward Tufte: we do not know what his opinion about this page is. And anyway, different experts may have different opinions on the same thing. It is for Wikipedia editors to decide, by consensus and following rules and guidelines, what should and what should not appear on this encyclopedia's webpages.

--Engineering Guy (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I have taken out the following:

Software changes were left open to explore ways of increasing the appeal of Wikipedia to attract women readers to register as editors, and to increase the potential of existing editors to nominate more women administrators to enhance the 'management' presence of women at Wikipedia.

References

It hardly hangs together as a sentence, and in the context of the previous sentence is almost meaningless.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

113.199.255.197 (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC) what is main difference between file access component and database access component

Not done: Were you looking for the reference desk perhaps? --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

This was really, really fun reading: bigger than The Donald.

Headline-1: On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate

• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html

QUOTE: "For a website with no paid writing staff that is still overcoming an out-of-date reputation for inaccuracy, Wikipedia punches above its weight. As a primer for just about any topic, it is especially powerful in an election season: On the day of the 2012 election, Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s entries alone were read 1.6 million times.

The online encyclopedia famously allows the public to edit it, but it also publishes reams of data about itself: about what articles used to say, who added or deleted passages and how many people read the articles.

Page-view statistics, for example, show that on some primary days, Wikipedia may be able to predict the winner.

Presidential Election 2016 Donald Trump’s Immigration Message May Resound in New Hampshire FEB 5 Our Man in New Hampshire: The Exit of Martin O’Malley FEB 5 Who Won the Debate? Critics Are as Split as the Candidates FEB 5 Hillary Clinton Is Again Put on the Defensive Over Perceived Ties to Wall Street FEB 5 Transcript of the Democratic Presidential Debate FEB 5.

Editing archives show debates happening almost in real time, with contributors fighting over facts and policies as if they were the candidates themselves."

-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

irc

what was the irc channel for this again? SuperCofee (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@SuperCofee: There are multiple IRC channels related to Wikipedia; WP:IRC has more information about those channels. CabbagePotato (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

content

how can I edit the page Vaibhavaggarwal612 (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430201444/http://chnm.gmu.edu:80/resources/essays/d/42 to http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140209203337/http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all to http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

Please remove the wikipedia web address as we are on wikipedia 65.175.243.206 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Due to Wikipedia#Methods of access, this is not always the case. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

freemasons list

I attempted to add a prominant freemason. You chose to delete it. How do i get this person added? Dilligaf777 (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Donations

The nagging ads need to be clearer about the financial situation of WMF. Every year the donations by far exceed the running costs, and these profits go where? Besides, I'd rather see ads than that annoying nag page which is way more distracting than any ad I've seen on a web page in the last 15 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.219.170.156 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article about Wikipedia, not Wikipedia itself. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There must be a better way to document sources...

As it stands, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and several others, are corporate media. They don't actually present Conservative bias, nor Liberal bias. Nor do they have any dedication to telling the truth. They are, first and foremost, corporate media. I've thought about this in the past, but it always becomes much clearer when political topics are discussed.

Due to the fact that they're corporate media, it doesn't take much for them to put a journalistic spin on whatever they're covering – even when it's untrue. We saw it during the coverage of the shooting of Michael Brown ‐ corporate media focused heavily on the scuffles and animosity, yet heavily avoided the majority of the actual, peaceful protests, which made up the majority up the protests. They only listened when a QuickTrips or other buildings were on fire, and didn't take brushed off and avoided the peaceful protesters. Instead, they antagonized those who didn't want to be recorded, and made it look like everyone was a bunch of thugs. Sure, there were lots of people who were acting up, but that wasn't the majority, by far.

Corporate media is untrustworthy, because by nature, their objective is to draw in viewers, so that they can stay in business. Therefore, they're always looking for "shocking" stories – because that's what captures people's attention. By relentlessly focusing on things this way, it doesn't have to actually be true, which is why they have to remain as unbiased as possible. If something is actually true, then journalists wouldn't be compelled to attempt to be unbiased, because the truth would speak for itself.

Then we've got the problem children, like Breitbart News Network, RedState, YoungCons, etc., who just write off-the-wall, wrong, and ridiculous shit.

I don't know what the fix is - but it seems to me like there's a better solution out there. Where Fox News sources are used – even if they serve as an original sources – if a different source also serves as an original source, should the Fox source be replaced with the other news source, instead? And should using Breitbart and RedState types of sources be banned?

Wikipedia gets a whole lot of ridiculous "opinions", often quoted from these sources. To be pointed, I don't think that including Fox News "opinions" should ever appear on the climate change page. Nor should Creation Ministries International sources ever appear on the evolution page. I hope that gives everyone a clearer indication as to what I'm trying to say. Not exactly "restricting free speech", just preventing stupid speech. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 14:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This Talk page is for discussing changes to the article about Wikipedia. A better venue for your comment might by Jimmy Wales's talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

What does Jimmy Wales have to do with sourcing? Any suggestions on sources and policies should be covered in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Pacerier (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC): ❝

Well, his page has $100$ centijimbos which is the highest count so far. So we'll get much more responses there.

❞

I thought of that because general issues like this are often discussed on his Talk page. But I think your suggestion is the better one. 14:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Worldwide readership

"The number of readers of Wikipedia worldwide reached 365 million at the end of 2009". This is old news. Don't we have any up-to-date statistic for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

The bot doesn't really seem to be running. We have 2 month-old discussions from the beginning of January that haven't been archived yet, even though stale discussions are supposed to be archived after 14 days. MB298 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

70.63.187.106 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done. Empty request. Deli nk (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Update the stats

2016

Pacerier (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC): ❝

The image in "Wikipedia #Diversity" is nearing a decade old:

Is there a more recent survey?

❞

Yes, exactly, I was just wondering about the same thing too. Does anyone here have reference(s) to more recent info? Does more up-to-date demographic information regarding Wikipedia contributors actually exist? Nsk92 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Access vs editing power

"Those who can access the site can edit most of its articles.[5]"

Shouldn't there be some language that makes an exception for blocked ip addresses? Such as:

Those who can access the site and aren't blocked can edit most of its articles.[5]

Thoughts? I am new to this so please have patience.

Enlikenment (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Enlikement: There is a complicated hierarchy of user access levels that determines who can or cannot edit each article in Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia's article about mass killings under communist regimes has been fully protected since 2011 and can only be edited by administrators. Jarble (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Better Translations For wikipedia counter-parts?

I've noticed despite google-translate best efforts that sometimes the context has a tendency to be lost. I think there needs to be a new initiative of translation. Specifically something more in-house besides something external. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.51.217 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Statistics in the infobox

I've just tried to correct statistics in the infobox but failed. However, these that are right now shown are not correct too (they are for English Wikipedia). Someone should make formula with that template to calculate and chop off several digits from the right and display number as >292,000 i.e. >62,170,000 for example. --Obsuser (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is one solution too: >291,915 acive users and >113,339,570 registered users as number is always larger than (or: larger than or equal to) the one Acebot provides for {{NUMBEROF}}. --Obsuser (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogchap.com/2011/09/06/top-40-website-programming-languages/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

So which platform is it? MySQL, LAMP, or PHP??

The "infobox" for Wikipedia indicates that it's "written in" LAMP, but the wiki-link for LAMP takes you to MySQL. To confuse matters further, the citation for that piece of information indicates that Wikipedia's programming language is PHP. I don't know very much at all about programming languages, but I'm pretty sure that MySQL is just a part of LAMP. So ----- what is Wikipedia really written in? I think it's kind of embarrassing that an article about Wikipedia can present essentially 3 different possible answers for what should be a simple question.--Akhooha (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Akhooha: Actually, if you take a closer look at the infobox, each letter in "L A M P" links to a different article: The "L" links to Linux, the "A" links to Apache HTTP Server, the "M" links to MySQL, and the "P" links to PHP; they're all part of LAMP (at least according to Wikipedia's own article; not really sure why the last link wasn't used in place of the four separate ones).

As for the discrepancy between the information in the infobox and the citation, it's because an editor (Checkingfax) had changed the programming language from PHP to LAMP without changing the citation. Maybe that editor could tell you where he got the information from. CabbagePotato (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Akhooha and CabbagePotato. Before I touched it, there was just PHP which is the server side scripting language, so I expanded its parameter data to reflect the whole L.A.M.P. platform (bundle). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, CabbagePotato and Checkingfax. Just a thought: wouldn't it be better to just separately list those various components separated by some commas? Perhaps I'm just part of a very non-observant minority, but I don't think many people would cleverly hover over each letter in an apparent acronym and come to the conclusion that they are all components of the "LAMP" platform . . .--Akhooha (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Akhooha: I've decided to just go ahead and replace the separate links for each component with a single link to LAMP (software bundle) (diff). My reasoning is, if people wanted to learn more about LAMP, they could just follow the link to that article, which has some information and links for each of the four components. CabbagePotato (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511110022/http://www.wikisym.org/ws2009/procfiles/p108-suh.pdf to http://www.wikisym.org/ws2009/procfiles/p108-suh.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120708062333/http://www.businessweek.com:80/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress to http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080209110303/http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au:80/index.php/id;1866322157;fp;2;fpid;2 to http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1866322157;fp;2;fpid;2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116022451/http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html to http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080303001807/http://www.nybooks.com:80/articles/21131 to http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016

14.142.98.34 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC) name : DEEPAKRAJ born: 17 januaury, 1994

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. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 06:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

sites that redirect here

I noticed typing wikipedia.com forwards to wikipedia.org. Is this the case for any other websites? I don't keep sites I visit in memory so I need to type out the URL each time and was wondering if there was something shorter to type to save time. Ranze (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Use bookmarks. Also, enwp.org is a shortcut to the English Wikipedia, not sure about other Wikimedia sites or other language Wikipedias. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

hi i love wiki and wanted to join the crew

Gutbucket224 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016

me need to edit

Mr.stabby (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Updated demographics?

Do we have more recent demographics for updating File:WMF_Strategic_Plan_Survey.svg? I suspect that 2009 data is pretty out of date. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki extension used for searching

The section Software operations and support says that Wikipedia currently uses Lucene Search, citing mw:Extension:Lucene-search, but that page says the extension is obsolete. It seems that Wikipedia currently uses the CirrusSearch extension. Can someone rewrite the sentence with updated information? Gulumeemee (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

5.49 million rated articles

The section Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality has a table of all rated articles by quality and importance. The total number of articles in the table is about 5.49 million, but according to Special:Statistics, there are only about 5.29 million articles. Why are there 200,000 more articles in the table? Gulumeemee (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Russian propaganda on wiki.ru

hey, the russians are using the wiki.ru as a propaganda channel, especially in their war against Ukraine, at such extent that it cannot be considered as encyclopedia. 1. it refuses to define russia's action in crimea as "military intervention in ukraine", instead it calls it "help for a new sovereign state of crimea". 2. also there are a lot of made up distortions in "euromaidan" article, trying to present it as an armed coup. I tried to speak to the moderators, but they pretend that they don't understand or become sarcastic. 212.90.182.118 (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User blocked per WP:NOTTHERE for continuing soapboxing after warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Original research using Porter's five forces analysis

The section Internal research and operational development seems to contain original research. It analyzes Wikipedia using Porter's five forces analysis, but the sources cited do not seem to analyze Wikipedia, so the analysis is not directly supported by the sources. Gulumeemee (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC) The sources may verify what Porter's five forces analysis is, but using it to analyze Wikipedia seems to be original research. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Two of the sources cited are from the 1980s and cannot possibly verify an analysis of Wikipedia. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the Michael Porter five forces analysis framework for industry analysis, Wikipedia and its parent institution Wikimedia are known as "first movers" and "radical innovators" in the services provided and supported by an open-source, on-line encyclopedia. The "five forces" are centered around the issue of "competitive rivalry" within the encyclopedia industry where Wikipedia is seen as having redefined by its "radical innovation" the parameters of effectiveness applied to conventional encyclopedia publication. This is the first force of Porter's five forces analysis. The second force is the "threat of new entrants" with competitive services and products possibly arising on the internet or the web. As a "first mover", Wikipedia has largely eluded the emergence of a fast second to challenge its radical innovation and its standing as the central provider of the services which it offers through the World Wide Web. Porter's third force is the "threat of substitute products" and it is too early to identify Google's "Knowledge Graphs" as an effective competitor given the current dependence of "Knowledge Graphs" upon Wikipedia's free access to its open-source services. The fourth force in the Porter five forces analysis is the "bargaining power of consumers" who use the services provided by Wikipedia, which has historically largely been nullified by the Wikipedia founding principle of an open invitation to expand and edit its content expressed in its moniker of being "the encyclopedia which anyone can edit." The fifth force in the Porter five forces analysis is defined as the "bargaining power of suppliers", presently seen as the open domain of both the global internet as a whole and the resources of public libraries worldwide, and therefore it is not seen as a limiting factor in the immediate future of the further development of Wikipedia.

References

This looks like original research or synthesis, so I moved it here. The user who added it in this edit, LawrencePrincipe, has not edited since March 2015. Gulumeemee (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2016

The art on diversity about 13% of people are female should be change. More recent Info says 9% TheAllmighty (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thought the use of the word State in "US State of Virginia" was incorrect.

It is my understanding the Virginia is a US Commonwealth more than a state in the strictest sense of either word to describe it. So I edited the word State to Commonwealth. I hope this is a correct interpretation.

Regards, Reno RReali158 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that four states (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky as well as Virginia) choose to call themselves "Commonwealth" in their title doesn't mean that they aren't states. The United States comprises 50 entities classified as states, not 46 states and four commonwealths. If they aren't states, then how do you explain that each has voting representation in Congress, given that the Constitution accords no such representation to any entity identified as a "commonwealth"? I've reverted your change to the article. Largoplazo (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Mycroft

In the Series Four premiere of BBC's "Sherlock," (The Six Thatchers) Mycroft Holmes admitted that he is, in fact, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbbaScibba (talk • contribs) 08:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced comment found in Talk:Wikipedia/to do

Hello, this is my first edit. I want to make or would like to see a section in the wikipedia article about the controversial handling of advertisements, that is growing year-by-year. Many volunteer editors have remarked their discontent with the marketing strategies; and while the money is collected by the Wikimedia Foundation, the fundraising takes place on the Wikipedia websites, which is why I believe the main wikipedia article deserves a remark about this controversy. 98.185.211.30 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Terms of use for wikipedia

Why do the terms of use skip 13 14 and 15 in the English terms of use page for the effective terms after June 16 2014 are there any terms for these numbers Jaybird114 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Name "Mark Bergman" is wrong as author of a PDF which is cited. Ought to be "Mark Bergsma" 135.196.89.95 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

C Clarification: IP referring to author of reference 230. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017

Replace the contents of the article with the contents of Talk:Wikipedia/sandbox. No controversial changes are made. Changes are mostly cleaning up of links to projectspace, minor rewriting and copyediting, rearrangements of some sections. Additionally, recommend this page to unprotected. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Alexa

Earlier this year, last month if I remember correctly, it was 5 in the Alexa rank, so now the infobox should probably indicate decrease at the current standing (6). Brandmeister^talk 22:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Minor but correct. It decreased in mid-late January. The error was made here when Meno25 made the update.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: Yep. Sorry about the error. --Meno25 (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Meno25: No my bad. I thought the article was fully protected. I should have just fixed and kept moving.  Done —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Stylized?

The opening sentence says Wikipedia is stylized WikipediA. Where is that from? Is it because of the larger A shown in the logo? But, since the letters are all caps, shouldn't it then be WIKIPEDIA with the W and A larger? But does a logo really determine a stylization guideline? Isn't showing the logo enough? Can this be sourced/explained? Timtempleton (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, what it says doesn't make sense to me. Besides that, I believe the usual word for this purpose is "styled", not "stylized", but I'm not certain. Largoplazo (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:TM/STYLE, "stylized" seems correct. Though I also find the addition strange - I have never seen Wikipedia stylized as "WikipediA" in any text. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably based on the logo as stated above. That makes it still incorrect as the logo uses all upper case letters. Removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Some Trivia Worth Noting

Today, a friend of mine pointed out something fascinating about Wikipedia. On any article, if you click the first link (not including disambiguation/alternate meaning/pronunciation/external site links- the first link that's part of the text), then click the first link on the page that leads you to, and continue this process, you will inevitably wind up at Philosophy. This works for anything. Try it yourself, and, if at all possible, please add this to the article. Cheers, Pyr0m4n14c from the IMFDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:CB01:DA00:7D01:AAD3:182:7155 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just thought I would point this out. There isn't an article for this, but there is an essay page about it. tkareka (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017

Mackramer (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a site where "people in robes" and pick their noses can make edits for everyone to see.

 Not done - While there is good evidence to suggest that Wikipedia editors pick their noses, you have provided no reliable source to support the notion that we wear robes at a higher rate than the general population. TimothyJosephWood 19:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

Percent is spelled as Per cent Edit Dev (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:PERCENT. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

what's the point of a Wikipedia article ABOUT WIKIPEDIA?

how could you be on Wikipedia but not even know what it is? its ironic lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.67.34 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Does a dictionary have a definition of the word dictionary? Or an encyclopedia have an article on encyclopedias? Yes they do.PUNKMINKIS (CHAT) 16:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained {{coi}} tag

@Siuenti: What's the reason for this cleanup tag that you added to this talk page? Jarble (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It was only an April Fools joke, and it appeared Siuenti forgot to remove it. I've removed it. Linguist^talk|contribs 17:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Language editions

@Bbb23: per WP:EGG, it is better to make it obvious to the reader that a list exists, rather than the current situation of having a link on the words "language editions of Wikipedia". Most readers wouldn't suspect that a link to another article is there. I removed the current link while adding the {{main}} hatnote to prevent WP:REPEATLINKing; if you feel that the current link should stay, that's fine. feminist 14:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Feminist: I didn't see the addition of the hatnote. My fault and my apologies. I restored your edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

New Good Article (Re-)Nomination?

A lot of progress has been done on this page since 2014. A lot of the concerns voiced in the delisting are no longer valid, and the page has been massively expanded since then. Perhaps it is time to put forth a nomination? Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 01:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Who will check to ensure every sentence is sourced? QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

First we'll need to update this section, which is several years out of date. Jarble (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll pass. Too much work for this page. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

131gabbi (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Andhari surname caste - Wikipedia

Andhari surname caste is a Vaishnav Vani/Vania caste. This belongs to the Vaishya(Merchant) caste, one of the varnas of Hinduism. They are traditionally traders, merchants, dealers found mainly in the Indian regions of Konkan, Goa, some parts of coastal and central Karnataka, and Kerala. They speak dialects of the Marathi and Konkani.

May want to try Wikipedia:Requested articles. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia as Philosophy

That all sensation-emotion-mentation is the means of philosophy, and the content of any medium today is philosophical. Arnold45.49.226.155 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

...Ok? TimothyJosephWood 17:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Then I'll try to create a "New section"Arnold45.49.226.155 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I have... absolutely no idea what you're talking about. TimothyJosephWood 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Section on openness

Does the section on openness, in view of the fact it mentions how free editing can mean risk of inaccuracies, mean that this article merits a wikilink to {Criticism of Wikipedia]]?81.140.1.129 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused

Please can someone explain to me how and why it isn't a COI violation for Wikipedians to be editing the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia website? I'm confused! Can we really have NPOV? Darreg (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I benefit in no way whatsoever from how the Wikipedia article presents Wikipedia. From WP:EXTERNALREL: "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." How would this apply to me if I were to edit the article about Wikipedia? Largoplazo (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A Catch 22? There is no solution to this problem. --Bod (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The solution is that anonymous editors should be preferred over wikipedia members. This was actually how wikipedia was originally supposed to work. The concept of having official moderators who control pages is a recent policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B127:6565:F437:BF87:6C4F:B164 (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that registering yourself gives you more of a conflict of interest than a person who merrily edits Wikipedia without ever registering. Also, your comment about "official moderators" seems a tangent since the original question was about "Wikipedians", by which I understood "editors", not "official moderators" (whatever you meant by that). Largoplazo (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B127:6565:5949:D9D8:6865:1FC (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you guessing that that page will, somewhere on it, have the answer to my comment, and you'd rather have me spend time looking through it, trying to guess what part of it is supposed to be that answer, than simply answering my comment yourself? Largoplazo (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

To avoid all COI, maybe only permanently blocked editors should be allowed to edit this article? Or maybe go even further? Perhaps the ideal solution would be to have only Russavia edit this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on itself has been raised many times before, and the answer is definitely yes. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 09:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darreg, Largoplazo, Bodhi Peace, Tiptoethrutheminefield, and Flow 234: I don't know if this section is being serious or not, but I'll explain. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rules like WP:COI aren't meant to be strictly interpreted word for word, consensus is the main way we do things around here. Right now, consensus says that we should ignore this rule. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 18:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"Good article" and similar redirects now at RfD

The following redirects, Good article, Good Article, Good articles, and Good Articles, have been relisted into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 20#Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles, where you are invited to discuss them. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017

101.211.174.202 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Empty request, nothing to do - FlightTime (open channel) 18:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

What made you changes to Wikipedia and because encyclopedia have so much history I even used it when I was a kid and will ever consider going to back to the original name which made it so easy and what is the abbreviation for Wikipedia and how will transcend in to our history today Spucknic (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

My Page to Deletion

i want to delete my other pages because my other pages is mistaken created and useless please this is important remember wikipedia is public — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanjarrettp (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Armanjarrettp. I assume you're talking about Bakersfield or Los Angeles Station. Looks like it's already been tagged for deletion, and an admin will surely come along soon and take care of it. For the future, this page is for discussion about improvements to the article about Wikipedia, and not about editing Wikipedia generally. You may want to head over to The Teahouse next time, where there are always lots so folks willing to help with issues related to editing. TimothyJosephWood 12:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Number of Page Watchers Question

I’m don’t know if this question is appropriate here, but if it isn’t please excuse me as I can think of no other place to ask it. My question is a simple one. When checking to see how many page watchers an article has, why is the answer an exact number for thirty or over watchers but for under thirty watchers it merely states: “Fewer than 30 page watchers”? if an exact count is possible for thirty or over, then why not for under thirty? Does anyone know? Thank you much.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey HistoryBuff14. You may want to try asking at The Teahouse which exists pretty much to answer any kind of question about Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 17:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much! Will do. Best regards, HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14 got a talk reply but didn't ask elsewhere so I will answer here. There was concern that vandals could use the information to pick targets with no or very few watchers. mw:Manual:$wgUnwatchedPageThreshold is set to 30 for Wikimedia wikis in http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. Administrators can see the precise number and also see a list at Special:UnwatchedPages. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Sounds logical and reasonable. Thanks much fro your time! It's appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing my email address.

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 recently deleted my email address and created a new one so I need to change that on my Wikipedia profile. DonCicatriz (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@DonCicatriz: head over to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal to do that. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:51, 8 September 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140803134036/http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia to http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312013353/http://www.japannewsreview.com/society/chubu/20070705page_id%3D364 to http://www.japannewsreview.com/society/chubu/20070705page_id%3D364
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

List of big donors to Wikipedia

Why not publish a list of big donors to Wikipedia? I read that Soroses organisations figure in good positions as big donors.

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation/Annual_Report/2015-2016/Donors GMG^talk 13:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017

 Not done - It is not clear what change you would like made, and the extensive text is copied and pasted from online without attribution, which constitutions a copyright violation. GMG^talk 18:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Add articles

How does one add an article? History Gaming YT (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey History Gaming YT. You may want to consider reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article, or taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. If you have questions in the future, you should instead ask them at The Teahouse, which is a dedicated forum for new users to seek advice. GMG^talk 20:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

Abdul Qayyum SEHRAI KHAN 09:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Abdul Qayyum SEHRAI An individual with the great positive tribal role modelship and enthusiastic member of the Pakhtoonkhwa Mili Awami Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhad khan achakzai (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 November 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006065927/http://osdir.com/ml/science.linguistics.wikipedia.international/2003-03/msg00008.html to http://osdir.com/ml/science.linguistics.wikipedia.international/2003-03/msg00008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012052730/http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Dammit-Manning-have-you-considered-the-pronoun-war-that-this-is-going-t-Cartoon-Prints_i9813981_.htm to http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Dammit-Manning-have-you-considered-the-pronoun-war-that-this-is-going-t-Cartoon-Prints_i9813981_.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sys03-public.nbcnews.com/technology/wikipedia-editorial-warzone-says-study-838793

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Systemic Bias Issue

the reason given as a potential cause for systemic bias is that most contributors are young White educated males. I suggest that you add examples of other possible causes, like the general political correctness ruling most web sites, which derives from the domination of liberal ideology over Western or westernised societies. Another reason could be the list of big Wikipedia's donors, who are, for the most part heavilly on the "liberal" and "progressive" side of the ideological spectrum, which could ideologically influence the way Wikipedia is moderated.91.197.129.74 (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - No sources were provided for the content. If you would like content changed, please provide published sources to support the changes which meet our standards for reliability. GMG^talk 13:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP is upset because we call Stormfront a hate site. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I kindof assumed there was some kind of history lurking around behind these posts. But at the end of the day, if this can be well sourced, there's nothing wrong with including something about it. I'm not entirely sure it can be well sourced, but that's a different issue perhaps. GMG^talk 14:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The original critique is racist. It claims that my concerns re Wikipedia racism is based on "young white educated males". That was never what I said. But the editors removed my original post so that the evidence would not exist. GreenMeansGo took my post, twisted it into a perverted form and then responded by rewording what I said. I never said young white educated males. Further, GreenMeansGo removed the fact that racists pro white supremacists and jingoists edit out truths re black and African accomplishments, and GreenMeansGo put the blame on liberals, who are more likely not to be racist (another logical fallacy). IN other words GreenMeansGo is blaming progressive liberals for the WIkipedia editing racism, when liberals are not typically racist, and without any evidence that the racist editors were liberals. I have many screenshots of the racist tactics, I've written various Wikipedia executives but none return the communications, no one cares about the matter thus the racist white supremacist bullies here continue their tactics and unconstitutional strategies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DDC7:1700:F0D2:4E4D:3108:4EF1 (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Le sigh. Can't you just start a blog, or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.113 (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Non-Enclycopedic subjects

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.

---

Please excuse my previous edits, in where I expressed some minor personal belief. I understand the rules here in the talk section are always kept strict. Ahem, so what other Non-Encyclopedic, and potentially bias subjects does Wikipedia host? Try to be helpful and informative, rather than just delete my comments please. Thanks. 76.90.119.159 (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Read the note at the top of this page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:42, 1 December 2017 (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.

Supports to Wikipedia family and its sub-projects

Though after many researches in my stance, I cannot totally understand many pieces of data and how this community is working all around the world depending on them, and though some deletions made me feel not very happy beyond cultures, I still want to give this organization a support after finding in many fields and platforms I can use some commons' creations in reasonable ways & tools with my imaginations and creativities. What about you, dears? You can give your supports and reasons in this list of Talk page:

• Sign: Jason M. C., Han (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reason: Comfortable to be used in many ways.

Minor Errors

That wikimentary video (subtitle: "Video of Wikimania 2005 – an annual conference for...") is broken. While watching it, it kept looping back on itself, forcing the viewer (me) to skip ahead. It may not be broken, and it may just be like that, I don't know.

Neuralnewt (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I add more information?

Hello my Wikipedians! I’ve got one curious question! How do you add more information? Like where do you live, what languages you speak and what you plan to do in the future! If you’ve got information then please comment on this page and as always thank you very much! Bubba2018 (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Bubba2018 Bubba2018 (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bubba2018. I suggest the Teahouse. —PaleoNeonate – 23:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor error and missing citation

The line:

• The Wikipedia article about Virgin Killer—a 1976 album from German heavy metal band Scorpions—features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl.

should be changed into something like below because it assumes that the page won't change:

• The Wikipedia article about Virgin Killer—a 1976 album from German heavy metal band Scorpions—features a picture of the album's original cover for the majority of the time, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl.

WouterPeters (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2017

I need help getting a account 2.96.19.47 (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You should look at, Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:Request an account. ~ GB fan 12:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

novice editor here, minor grammatical correction to English version

change:

Other collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before Wikipedia, but none was as successful.

to:

Other collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before Wikipedia, but none were as successful. 2620:0:2250:101C:A4E2:D61F:5D3:E307 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Done NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

AP style guide specifies "none was" -- this is an ambiguity in English grammar. 108.46.79.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Supposed bias or editorial slant

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.

---

Some people believe Wikipedia is biased in a specific direction, such as the self-proclaimed "rival" site Conservapedia. Whether actual bias exists can be discussed here.

Forum

I'll go first. What's interesting about Wikipedia is how little trouble the site has with malicious or intentionally wrong edits. Which isn't to say that those edits don't happen (Citation: I tried editing the page on image macro memes to reflect that the dead horse has been beaten into dust), but anything the bots don't notice is usually fixed by a human moderator eventually. (Citation: see previous citation) The mods are so effective that for the most part it's a very constructive community, where people are working to make it as reliable as possible. Wikipedia has been my go-to for basically every school project since fifth grade, and I've yet to see an article that was pushing an agenda. There is some bias in a few historical articles (Citation: a page about the Oregon Trail or pioneers or something that had a complaint about bias at the top), but that's mainly because the group of people who know the most about the event are all from a single country. In a lot of cases, even that doesn't cause bias, but you know how narcissistic America is about its history.

Anyway. The only articles with room for bias that anyone cares about (citation needed) are the controversial political ones like the 2016 election or feminism. The nice thing about having a bunch of total strangers writing articles for something is that everyone has their own opinion, and there's no consistent bias from one article to the next. It really comes down to which political party uses Wikipedia the most.

-Tad Quick (i should really make an account)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.22.17 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018‎ (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is to discuss specific improvements to the article. To other editors: feel free to remove my comment along with this thread if considered adequate. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No that's ridiculous. Your comment is relevant, and just fine even though it's not directly on topic. 75.82.59.114 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2018 (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.

Pie charts

I find the pie charts, which have no source given, suspect. In particular, the Spanish chart has no US indicated. That seems very unlikely to me. 46.34.204.212 (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Cebuano

There should be some explanation why a minor language with a small Wiki community has the second-most number of articles. An explanation is given here: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-so-many-articles-in-the-Cebuano-language-on-Wikipedia 46.34.204.212 (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. That certainly is interesting, and I had wondered about this myself. Unfortunately, Quora is an online forum, and so would not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability, and I'm afraid we would need to find a higher quality source in order to include the content in the Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 16:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Lsjbot could be mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

Remove "wikiwiki.com" from the list of subsidiary's on the infobox. Therealhuman21 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 02:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

content

I have very good con ent for you guys Createev (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

change monies to money 207.163.34.104 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"Monies" is correct in this context. General Ization ^Talk 21:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Irony

Isn't it a bit ironic that this website has its own mainspace page? KingOfBacon (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really KingOfBacon. Wikipedia has articles on notable subjects. Clearly Wikipedia is also one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

183.90.36.235 (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Empty request, nothing to do. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit/Update request

Hi - Rather surprised that the basic info about the size of Wikipedia is so out of date - does anyone have some more information? Para two (citation 15) says " as of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.[15]" Feb 2014 ??? Wow... Thanks PhilKerswell (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Source on Wikipedia

Check out the Washington Post article entitled Conspiracy videos? Fake news? Enter Wikipedia, the ‘good cop’ of the Internet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Move the diversity section to Wikipedia community

The diversity section seems to fit a lot better on the Wikipedia community page than it does here. I propose that we move that sub-section on this page to a full section on the Wikipedia community page, located somewhere after the size section but before the criticism section. Once it's moved, I don't think we should delete the section from this page completely, but rather summarize it here and have all of the details on the Wikipedia community page. What are your opinions on this?--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy support. Why did this need an RfC? wumbolo ^^^ 08:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• • I have done this and closed the RfC, as there were no opposes after having this up for 6 days.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 19:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Predictions of Wikipedia's end

The consensus is against a merge of Predictions of Wikipedia's end to Wikipedia.

Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

"Predictions of Wikipedia's end" belong in the "Wikipedia" article. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 17:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC

• Don't merge - The Wikipedia article is already so long it takes hours to read on its own. Also, The Prediction of Wikipedia's End article is bound to get longer as the site inceases in age, and more people predict its end. Prediction of Wikipedia's End is an interesting topic on it's own, and a notable topic too because there has been articles on it in high profile newspapers and magazines. This is why I think we should keep these articles separated. Emass100 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Don't merge. Emass100 is right. This article already is 78 kB rps. Refer to WP:SIZERULE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Would not a more appropriate merge target be History of Wikipedia?Vorbee (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Don't merge. I've been thinking about this for a while, and finally had to decide that I do not think it should be merged. Like others have said, this article is already too long, so merging a whole other article into this will make it even longer. However, at the same time, I'm not sure if Predictions of Wikipedia's end should be its own page. It is currently rather short, and even though it may expand in the future, I really don't think it is notable enough in itself to be its own page. I kind of like the idea of merging it in when the History of Wikipedia page. Best regards, --SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 17:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Would this be a better fit for Criticism of Wikipedia? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really think that the subject has to do with the Criticism of Wikipedia page. Even though criticizing Wikipedia and its future predictions is a large part of the page, the overall subject covers a lot more than just the criticism.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 17:36, 15 April 2018 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

My thoughts on Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia is not a good place to receive information. Most things on Wikipedia are fake because you can write whatever you wish like I'm doing now. Dumb people are logging on to this website to write ridiculous and false statements. These statements can be easily believable by any people who read sed statement. Not so long ago my professor assigned an essay. For this essay, there was some research required. He told us all about Wikipedia and NOT to use it because of those people who create false facts. Therefore I believe that the option to write whatever you wish should be discontinued so Wikipedia can be a reliable source. 207.210.29.22 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - This page is for suggested changes for the Wikipedia article about Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in helping make Wikipedia more reliable, you are more than welcome to do so. There are thousands of us volunteering every day to do just that, and there's no shortage of work to be done. GMG^talk 21:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Reputation.

I apologize if this has already been covered, but it's impossible to read everything. When Wikipedia was first introduced, it was widely maligned as "useless" because anyone could write anything in it. I remember an episode of The Office, where Michael Scott was praising Wikipedia, which was intended as satire, because the writers believed Wikipedia was a ridiculous thing to say anything good about.

That was the mid-2000s, and of course such misconceptions are all but disappeared, but I'm wondering if anyone has addressed this fully in any of the articles. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research it, but I'd like to know if it's done or needs to be done. Thanks

(editors note: I'm not sure how to set "answered" parameter. I'm not a regular user who has time to learn.) Landroo (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The longer Wikipedia has lasted the better its reputation, and I've been saying that Wikipedians will get the Nobel Peace Prize in 2024 (give or take a couple of years). The main reason it was mocked early-on was that the idea sounded ridiculous. Why would intelligent people actually volunteer for hours at a time to give away their work? The people who want to disrupt it surely will win out, vandals and pranksters and teenage roustabouts will make a mess of the Mona Lisa and anything else in their path. Well, Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales and many others were right. The concept of an open anyone-can-edit free-range encyclopedia actually worked in practice if not in principal. The accuracy thing is still left as a criticism, and I think more comparison studies should be made between Wikipedia and the other great encyclopedias for accuracy. To dispel the myth if nothing else. But you bring up good points, and seem like a fine volunteer unpaid editor who thinks this working and productive creative concept is the bee's knees. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2018

I think it would be more accurate to replace the "encyclopedia" on the first line with "online encyclopedia" because some people may confused on whether Wikipedia is literally a physical encyclopedia or not. Navajoin (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 18:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018

bunihotriubhejnsiuagvuiohdnsoijngiboke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.181.178 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - gibberish that makes no sense.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 13:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Should 'Wiki' be added as a nickname?

Here is a possible change to the lead sentence: Wikipedia, often shortened to Wiki,... . This adds a common nickname for Wikipedia. I'm of two or more minds about it, yet if the common nickname (would it be considered slang?) hasn't been discussed before, maybe worth kicking around. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The thing is, wiki and Wikipedia are not the same thing. A "wiki" is any website that can be edited by anyone (usually without having to even create an account), while "Wikipedia" is one specific wiki. "Wiki" is often used as a slang shortening for "Wikipedia," but the fact that they're actually two separate terms is why I'm not sure if it should be added in that way, although I'm not saying it can't be added at all. Maybe we could put in something like, "Wikipedia is sometimes abbreviated to 'wiki' as slang, although the term wiki actually refers to any website that can by edited by anyone."? Something like that might work. However, we will still need sources supporting this, even if we know that this is true from personal experience. I'm definitely open to suggestions, and would like to hear the opinions of other users.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with everything you say. And it would be and look awkward to use the slang nickname in the lead sentence, but a mention somewhere (with sources - wondering if some writers use the slang term in print) makes some kind of sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a registered trademark

So why don't you use the symbol ® on the logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuyquang1 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't use trademark symbols. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks.TeraTIX 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Info Bubbles

i just want to say how much of a good idea i think the new 'info bubbles' ,as i call them, are. As most the time, when i read an article, i always come across something in the article, related or not, that peaks my interest. so say im reading about Shia Labeouf, and i come across the word 'plagiarism', and i'm like ooh, what does plagiarism mean?, so i'll right click the hyperlink and open it in a new tab so i can read about that after i've finished reading what i started out with, and more often than not, i'll end up with five or more new tabs open because i'll find other words or topics i want to know more about whilst reading the article. But now there are these cool info bubbles that come up when you hover the mouse over a hyperlinked word, that give you a small description or piece of info from the page that particular hyperlink leads too, which is so much handier, especially if you were just wanting a short description of a topic or word you knew nothing about, or were more curious about. so kudos to whoever came up with that. as a side note, a while back on a page, i made a suggestion for certain pages, like ones with scientific or mathematical equations or wording, to have what i call a 'layman's section' for those of us who don't understand what we are looking at, but want to. some of those pages, for instance a page on say, quantum mechanics, might be written in a way that is too complicated to understand, and is written under the assumption that whoever is reading it, will automatically know what is being written about, especially when it comes to pages with scientific equations written on them, for instance the page on 'proton' has equations on, with no explanation of what the letters mean in the equations. so say a kid was curious about protons, or had an assignment at school, to be able to understand what the heck they are looking at, they would have to go and learn all that stuff so as to be able to read and understand the equations, this is an example of a page that could benefit from a layman's section. Anyway, im getting off the point, my point is, that since i posted about adding this new section to the more complicated pages, i've noticed people have actually started adding the odd explanation to things starting with ...in layman's terms, this means... and i think its so helpful, so to all the people out there doing that, kudos to you guys too for helping simplify those otherwise complicated reads, for those of us not in the know on certain subjects. Wikipedia is the in my opinion, the best source of information on the internet. i know it gets a lot of stick for being error prone, or has fun made of it for being written by anybody, meaning what your reading could be wrong. but of course that is just daft. because most of what is written is correct, and the great thing is, that unlike a book encyclopedia where if there is an error, you have to wait for a new print for a correction, if one happens at all, with wikipedia, it can be changed instantaneously almost, to be correct. in a way, wikipedia is like the best metaphor for the argument about science over religion, and idea's over faith, where idea' can be changed , but faith is harder to change. wikipedia is an idea that just keeps changing as it gets more informed, and its a great one. in fact wikipedia is kind of like a collection of all human thought ever on the planet, every idea, every story, every factoid, just everything a human has thought, written, or done, can be found in wikipedia, and if its not here, it can be added with the press of a few buttons. if you ever wanted an Artificial Intelligence to have a collection of all human knowledge, it should have a live link to wikipedia, that way it would probably be the most comprehensive know it all robot ever made....which would be prett sweet. thanks wikipedia for changing the world, and making it easier to find things out, and bringing all the worlds knowledge into one place for people to find. youve done a heck of task, and wikipedia should be conidered one of the wonders of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D0S81 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

put a smiley emoji on every page! 185.85.57.79 (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: that's not encyclopedic at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social website. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018

Change "from its annual fund drives" to "from annual fund drives " Attad M (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: there's no reason to do that, as the cited E-commerce article says the exact same thing. ChamithN (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018

Change "Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free encyclopedia that is based on a model of openly editable content." to "Wikipedia a multilingual, web-based, free encyclopedia and it is the website that you're reading this article on right now. It is based on a model of openly editable content." -68.187.172.122 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Unnecessary detail. --Ebyabe (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

What if you're reading an offline or print version? TeraTIX 00:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2018

82.114.187.169 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're requesting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing basics

Missing basics are..

1. that Wikipedia works because its basic principles are efficient and in honor of freedom, being hosted on the internet with free all-hours access, and with all content licensed under a resistant-to-intellectual-property-hoarding "copyleft" type of license.
2. Wikipedia exists as part of the internet revolution, which is a part of the telecom age, where telecom also has delivered the capacity for tele-document and tele-collaboration. -Inowen (nlfte) 11:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Conflation of Wikipedia and English Wikipedia

This article does a lot of conflating Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. I've made some edits to avoid this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

My impression was that the material could still be useful since English Wikipedia is the largest and often the reference one, but the sentence should then specify that it's about the English one. —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating data concerning higher institutions in Nigeria

Nigeria currently have 385 Accredited higher institutions in Nigeria according to data obtained from National University commissions, National board for technical education, 152 universities, 82 colleges of education, 47,monotechnics,104 polytechnics as at 2018 released list. compiled by Oluwafemi Adeteju John a graduate of Tai solarin university of education Ijagun. Jadeteju (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jadeteju. This is a space to discuss ways to improve the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia itself. If you're looking for advice and assistance, you should consider posting at the The Teahouse instead, which is our dedicated forum for new users. If you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of education in Nigeria, then you should absolutely be bold and help improve the encyclopedia. You may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, both of which can help you better accustom yourself to how editing Wikipedia works. GMG^talk 12:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

'Cebuano' and 'Waray'

A while ago, some joker seems to have inserted those two obscure local filipino tongues into the list of largest wikis by language. I personally don't feel confident enough about my grasp of the wiki format to do more than simple grammar and spelling corrections, so someone more versed please get on the case! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimmick Account (talk • contribs) 14:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The article counts are correct. See https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en and https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?uselang=en for automatically made counts which cannot be falsified by editors. Nearly all the articles are bot-generated stubs. See Wikipedia#cite_note-135 which currently says: "Note that Lsjbot, a bot run by Sverker Johansson, is responsible for much of the growth of the second and third largest Wikipedias, the Cebuano and the Swedish Wikipedias, respectively, as well as the rapid growth of the Waray Wikipedia." I once tested 50 random Cebuano articles. None of them had a single human edit in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2018 (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:

• Wikipedia Edit 2014.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)