Wikipedia talk:About/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Pictures

how do i add on a picture to wikipedia? im not very sureBe happy 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

OK, now let's look at this:

Wiki users choose to stay anonymous." ...

Stating an opinion as a fact is POV, period. -- Rotem Dan 10:38 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The problem with the "is considered offensive" statement is that it is not necessarily true: Content that was considered offensive by user X yesterday may no longer be considered offensive now. For example, some users complained about the image illustrating the clitoris article; it was subsequently edited, and we do not know what these users think about the current version. The definitions of "offensive, vulgar, profane" are so vague that any statement to the prevalence of such feelings refers to attitudes that are likely to be in a constant flux; using speculative language is therefore more accurate. --Eloquence 10:46 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You are avioding the clear distinction I pointed out between an opinion and a fact. A speculative assertion is an opinion: "An American may hate the french people" would probably not qualify as NPOV in a Wikipedia article, it is a speculation, it has no clear ground regarding the real world, and will probably be dismissed as an assertion that serves some agenda. Saying "Some americans hate the french people" is a fact, but then again, define "hate". Nevertheless it is obvious which of the two is more NPOV -- Rotem Dan 11:02 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding the distinction, I'm pointing out a problem with it: The statement that some Americans hate the French can be easily proven by looking at the Yahoo! message boards. The statement regarding Wikipedia's alleged offensiveness to some people is much harder to prove. I do not recall that anyone has left the project because of it, for example, and the permanently changing nature of Wikipedia makes it difficult to assess the mindset of its users at any given time. That's why I consider a speculative statement preferable. If you make a controversial factual statement, NPOV requires that you back it up with citations and/or attribute it. --Eloquence 11:08 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

But a biased speculative assertion is fine? I hear the NPOV going down the drain. With this kind of thinking, I can go and flood Wikipedia with non-based biased speculations. To the George W. Bush article I will add: "Bush may murder a child when he sees one". "Americans may act dumb in most situations". "An Israeli solider may kill a palestinian when he sees one". "A palestinian may bomb him/herself when they walk into a restaurant".. -- Rotem Dan 11:22 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And by the way, if you don't know for sure that people are offended by W's material, why does this notice exist? -- Rotem Dan

Well, I certainly won't defend the notice, since I would be happier without it and found the content disclaimer silly from the start. But the whole point of the disclaimer is to warn the users from content that may be considered offensive, and the short sentence in the about page is not so much a factual statement about the status quo of Wikipedia, but a short warning to the same effect as the disclaimer, followed by a link to the full text. --Eloquence 11:34 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK, I understand, disclaimers present a "status quo opinion" (whatever that is, it is POV), not a fact. From lurking a bit on the Mailing list, I am seeing this hypocritical double standard emerging over the whole concept of NPOV (censorship, etc.). Well, frankly, I don't care, since the articles are GFDL (copyleft) I can reuse them wherever I want. The current administration board and policies can go to hell. (However, that certainly doesn't give me an extra incentive to work on the project).

By the way, consider moving these disclaimers to the meta-wikipedia, they don't serve a good example of NPOV on the main site -- Rotem Dan 12:02 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Removed link

I've moved the following link out of the article. I don't think this is similar enough to be listed in the 'similar projects' section. If we did that, we'd be listing everything that is in the list of encyclopedias. Angela . 06:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

www.novokat.ru PureEnergySystems, newly forming open-source alternative energy encyclopedia project; will have peer-review editor system.

Link to remove

I suggest that someone edits the section "Quality of Information" under "Summary of Strengths ..." as the link to the Boston Herald article no longer seems to work. The Boston Herald site offers only the opening couple of sentences from the article and states that the article has been archived. The link available on the site to retrieve the article from their archive fails to do so! Chris (new reader) 12:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mini-logo

From where can I obtain a wikipedia mini-logo similar to http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SisterSites? 81.203.105.99

The best person to ask would probably be User:Nohat (on his talk page or by email - david at nohat.net). Angela . 02:12, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Other languages

Would someone please add "Maori" to the list? :robinp 01:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You can add it yourself. It is hidden away at Template:Wikipedianufd gj7 eu qut7 schq yy dyy((((jtgyg6lang. Changes to that page will affect the Wikipedia article and the Main Page. Angela . 17:31, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Purpose?

wikipedia:contact us has contact info. The community portal is for current contributors. Welcome, newcomers is for newbies. Wikipedia has factual info, and the rest is just a hotch-potch. I think it's worth orphaning and redirecting this at some point. Martin 00:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to keep it just to point to those different places (Community Portal, Contact us etc). People are likely to look for an "About" link, and might overlook the other pages if they don't realise they are relevant. Angela . 08:02, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

What is this?

Quoting from the article page: The current incarnation of Wikipedia was begun on January 15, 2001 by founders Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, and a few enthusiastic English-language collaborators.

What is meant by "The current incarnation"? Were there previous incarnations? If so, I see no indication of it on History of Wikipedia. Seems to be unnecessarily confusing, if not outright wrong. I'm going to be bold and change it. -Rholton 19:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

"So it did not take much for Sanger to persuade Wales to set up a wiki for Nupedia. Nupedia's first wiki went online on January 10. There was considerable resistance on the part of Nupedia's editors and reviewers, however, to making Nupedia closely associated with a website in the wiki format. Therefore, the new project was given the name "Wikipedia" and launched on its own address, Wikipedia.com, on January 15" from History of Wikipedia. But a five day incarnation is hardly worth calling an incarnation. Your edits were good. :) --mav

Protecting this page

Looking at the page history for this page, almost all of it is vandalisms and reverts. Virtually all of the remaining legitimate edits were done by sysops. Would anyone object to semi-permanently protecting this page? →Raul654 07:34, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object. A wiki is supposed to be edited. Vandalism is easy to revert. See also Wikipedia talk:Protected page#Wikipedia:About. Angela . 00:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've suggested that as well. The page is strongly watched, but I just don't see the point of letting it be another sandbox. Dori | Talk 03:22, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

--Jew 10:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I sympathize with the problem, but as a responsible non-sysop I am somewhat frustrated at any page that I cannot edit. (Talk about getting spoiled by the Wiki concept! :-) Please don't protect this page. -Rholton 22:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While I sympathise with non-sysops, there shouldn't be too much need to add to this page. I was already coming here to suggest that it be protected, after seeing the history, which reads like "attack-revert-attack-revert", with very few actual new contributions. I think it'd be much better - particularly considering the attention this page does receive - if this were permanently protected, like the main page. Ambivalenthysteria 15:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why shouldn't there be too much need to add to this page? I think it could do with a complete rewrite personally. Angela . 00:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Someone legal also needs to replace the "WikiPedia is a trademark of..." with something which is legally more accurate and covers whether we mean trademark or tradename, whether the trademark is registered and if so where. BozMo talk

Oh and as another non-sysop I might add I don't mind being pushed into the shadows as long as someone who can edit the page is prepared to do the work and redo it. BozMo talk

What program is used to make this website?

Protecting this page part deux

To reopen the suggestion in the above section. Should this page be protected? The edit history is an extensive list of anonymous vandalism. I have the page on my Watchlist, and it's active almost every day. Furthermore, the page is linked to at the bottom of every page; other high-traffic pages, such as Wikipedia:Copyrights are protected; I see no reason for this one to be excluded. --Slowking Man 06:42, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of the copyright and disclaimer pages have legal consequences, not so for the about page. If they don't vandalise this page they'll vandalise something else, all in all I'd prefer it if they vandalised this which will be reverted within minutes, if not seconds. Also, since this is one of the first pages people interested in wikipedia see, I think it'd be nice if it was an example of "we don't need to disable editing to have good results", which is what wikipedia is based on after all. --fvw * 06:48, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

Basically agree with fvw, but I reckon it might be appropriate to place a comment at the very top of the document reminding people not to vandalise. It probably wouldn't stop many, but it might make a difference. Smoddy | ειπετε 15:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fvw's comment is true, but I think the reason for protecting Wikipedia:Copyrights and the Main page, among other pages, is more due to traffic than legal reasons. My opinion is that it's bad form to have a page vandalized so often when it's linked to from every other page. I don't want curious people to lose faith in Wikipedia when they click on the "About Wikipedia" link and see "LOL JOSH IS GAY!!!" as the first sentence. --Slowking Man 03:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-sysop, I can say that I nevertheless support protecting this page. I have to agree with Slowking Mans statement that this page is too often vandalised, and when people see this vandalism on our About-page it will definitely influence their opinion of the wiki concept in an unfavourable direction. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 03:36, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

To bring this up again: I think this page should be protected. As a new editor but longtime user of the site, the first thing I saw on the page was "im hacking u suckers". There is a little part of me that dies with every protected page, but new users on high-traffic pages shouldn't get that or something equally as inane. I didn't expect that page to be unprotected, since it is not an article. I think it really does belong to the framework of the site, being linked to from every (is it?) page. Just my $0.02.

As a non sysop, I'm also for protecting this page. Like my friend above, I didn't expect this page to be unprotected. Cliffb 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia introductory pages

A more holistic discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. Interested editors may wish to add their opinions there. Niteowlneils 16:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This could be interesting --Darrendeng 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

thieves???

Do you know about http://hallencyclopedia.com/ ?

They also say, "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Anyway, Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is the place for this, and it is listed there already.. --rbrwr ^± 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, by claiming copyright on it ("© 2004 Hall Encyclopedia.com - All rights reserved") they are violating our copyright. Furthermore, that tag is a lie - all rights are *not* reserved. →Raul654 18:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

They seem to have removed it. ffm ^yes? 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Protecting this page part 3

I researched the last 500 edits, between now and February, and discovered a number of remarkable statistics:

Edits not involving vandalism or reversion: 20

Minor edits (inserting/deleting words, adding punctuation): 11

Major edits (all others, such as moving material to other pages): 9

Major edits made by admins: 4

Major edits made by non admins: 5

Elwikipedista: add link to ro.
Elwikipedista: add link to ca.
CatherineMunro: update stats
Beland: tidy up help
anonymous: add pt.

Vandalism/reversion: 480

In short 96% of this page's history consists of vandalism and reverts. Three of the major edits made by non-admins were to add language links, one was to update size and usage statistics, and the fifth was to tweak a category. This page is hardly being edited at all.

I don't think that more restrictive editing methods, such as submitting a new version for review on another page, is too high a price to pay. After all, this is linked to from every page in the entire site. Furthermore, many other websites that praise wikipedia may include links here rather than/as well as to the main page. What will people think when they hear all about how great wikipedia is, and then follow the link and see '[expletive] [genital]'? It will shatter their confidence, and they'll keep using lokipedias. I'd hate to see that happen just so we can keep editing this page (literally!) three times a month. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:48, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

This article is one of the first ones a newbie will find, and thus one of the prime targets to do editing experiments, from adding a "test" up to genital or toilet humor. But this page is also on the watchlist of many people, and thus those editing experiments get reverted quickly. If a newbie does his experiments on a random page, the chances they will stay unnoticed for a long period of time are much better. Thus having this page like a honeypot is IMHO no problem. andy 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree this is a good thing. Have changed section title to match discussion topic--BozMo |talk 14:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this page is on enough watch-lists. There have been cases in which it has been vandalized by more than one person at once, making reversion difficult. --Ixfd64 01:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This edit is an example of what I am talking about. It stayed for almost an entire hour before I reverted it. --Ixfd64 03:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protected Dan100 (Talk) 11:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reworking of ABOUT page

There has been considerable discussion about the negative publicity and deteriorating reputation of Wikipedia in some reputable quarters. Part of this (see WP:VP) has been blamed upon this page failing to be clear as to an introduction to Wikipedia for newcomers, and how to use and rely upon it:

Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(policy)#There_are_reasons_for_the_slow_collapse_of_Wikipedia's_reputation

user:Ingoolemo has commented in a different context above that:

In short 96% of this page's history consists of vandalism and reverts. Three of the major edits made by non-admins were to add language links, one was to update size and usage statistics, and the fifth was to tweak a category. This page is hardly being edited at all.

I am aware that full reworking of major pages is unusual and often reverted. In this case I have thought hard and believe from the consensus of debate, it's probably warranted and necessary. I've restructured it to be more beneficial to a newcomer reader in explaining the basics, as follows:

A brief introduction/welcome message
Making best use of Wikipedia, including how to use it and disclaimers
Contributing, including pointers to major editing policies
Background, including history, stats, mediawiki and friends
Feedback and questions, including FAQ and how feedback works in wikipedia
Sister projects and versions

Please bring discussion here or improve the drafted version, rather than ignore the issue.

FT2 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is a great concept but . . .

it has serious flaws. The obvious drawback is vandalism. It is odd indeed that a solution to this problem can be easily solved by requiring users to log in order to have access to editing features but is not done. I don't see how this requirement would be against the concept of wiki. Registering is easy, one time only and does not require any identifiable information. Not even an e-mail address. And anybody can register. It is important to realize that users who edits needs to be held accountable. If a user is positively identified as a vandal, that user should be banned from the site. It is only fair to genuine users of this site. If this is done, vandalism on wikipedia will be a thing of the past. (Free Citizen 04:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)).

The wiki way is to use soft security. Higher fences just tempt the vandals to get more creative and put more effort into defeating us. So long as there are dedicated editors to do vandalism patrol, we (so far) feel that silently cleaning up after them is more effective than putting up fences. Although we have a great number of vandals here, very few of them are persistent vandals -- most try it on a couple of articles, for at most a couple of hours, then get bored and go away. Yes, it would be nice if we could discourage the vandals all at once rather than one at a time, but as often as we hear proposals like yours, what we have seems to be working. Thank you for your suggestion! CatherineMunro 05:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, I think this is the core sense of Wiki, to wich lots of people are offrending time and efforts.

I concur that Wiki has some serious flaws, the most notable of which I've experienced is an extremely serious group bias issue. More specifically, articles that are irrelevant but non-offensive remain intact, but articles that are far more relevant but also more controversial (such as Male Unbifurcated Undergarments and Men's Fashion Freedom) get nixed. In summary, Wiki works for some topics, but grossly violates objective/reality rules for others. Because of this serious flaw, Wiki will never be a true encyclopedia, as many claim. Rather, it has, by its own design, relegated itself to being a "Pretty good repository of socially acceptable information."

True encyclopedias have heavily codified rules which govern what information is to be included, and which is to be excluded. These rules remove the personal bias of the caretakers of the encyclopedia and both protect the inclusion of relevant, but personally distasteful material, while ensuring the exclusion of material that's non-relevant except perhaps to a few individuals. By contrast, Wiki's structure emphasizes personal tastes over relevancy, and strongly favors articles which never offend anyone's sensibilities, while heavily penalizing articles which even a few percent of Wikipedians find distasteful (even though they're squeaky clean from an objective perspective).

Wiki will never become what it claims to be until a significant change is made in the way articles are considered for deletion. Raw numbers of responses (the current method) is just grossly off-target. Even a percentage vote is seriously off target, as many topics which most of society would rather not hear about are nevertheless highly relevant to that society. Obesity is one such topic.

It is for these reasons that managers of encyclopedic content have never allowed themselves to slip into the trap of "majority rules." Instead, highly objective individuals are selected by board members, as proven by history (and not by popularity, as with Wiki admins), and given the responsibility of using well-defined rules to ensure content is relevant, rules which are quite capable of circumventing majority rule.

Good luck, Wiki. While I applaud your effort, and note your effectiveness for non-controversial topics, you'll never rise to the mark of being an encyclopedia until you implement measures and controls to counter errant mass opinion and ensure objective relevancy measurement. And no, the number of Google hits doesn't cut the mustard! Dr1819 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We already have such measures (you make a fundamental error in stating that WP:AFD works on number of responses, it explicitly does not). These measures exist, of course, to ensure that the fundamental policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR are followed - precisely the firm criteria for inclusion which you say we lack, in fact. Put simply: a concept which has failed to yield sufficient external attention in reputable secondary sources to ensure that we can verify the neutrality of an article on it, cannot be covered, however interesting. For a long time WP was the best place on the net to find a well-researched critique of Aetherometry, a piece of lunatic pseudo-science, but in the end we had to kill it because no scientific journal had published either the Aetherometry theories or any rebuttal thereof - it was original research.

I could decide to coin a term "blackhead" for anyone with black hair. I could produce websites and forum posts using the term. It might even be mentioned in the media that I use it. None of this would qualify it for inclusion, because (a) it is not widely used other than by me, and (b) the majority of those described do not describe themselves with that term, and even though probably 2/3 of the world's population has black hair it is ojnly in the West that any other colour is anything other than the norm, so most black-haired people don't even see the need to call it anything other than just "hair".

Every day on Wikipedia people try to document new terms for things (we call them neologisms or protologisms), or new and emerging movements, and they find that they are knocked back because of these policies. The only alternative is to open the doors to every fringe theory and POV-pusher, and that is not what Wikipedia is about, because without that widespread external coverage we can't be sure the project is not being used to sell snake oil. Myspace is an appropriate place to promote new terms and movements, Wikipedia is the place for documenting that which is already verifiably important to significant numbers of people, in the terms described. So do start with citations from reputable peer-reviewed journals, they always go down well. Just zis Guy you know? 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem remains, JZG, that people continue to post falsehoods in their recommendations to delete, and there's no mechanism of control to keep them from doing so. One would think that the many references clearly supporting the article itself would be enough, but it's readily apparent that people are either not reading the links, or they are, at best, taking a cursory look and coming up with some pretty wild assumptions. Gross misstatements of fact have been posted, even by admins, such as claiming that it's my website. This is wrong on two accounts. First, there are numerous websites out there, not one. Second, none belong to me, although I have posted on a couple of them.

Then there's the topic of administrator abuse, wherein the admins attack me, personally, make false statements, threaten IP blocking during the course of their recommendation (a gross violation of Wiki policy on two accounts - the threat, and actually doing it are both prohibited by Wiki policy during the course of a debate on the article).

The problem is that the content of the statements fails to meet even the barest of supportability standards. A comment like "delete - irrelevant fluff and neologism" should have no bearing whatsoever, as it's totally unqualified. No references are provided, no reasons given as to why the commenter believes it's neologism, fluff, or irrelevant. Ironically, the lack of qualification renders the comment itself irrelevant fluff!

The trend continues, and good articles are deleted, while totally irrelevant (but less controversial topics) remain, because people, particularly some of the admins, simply do not understand commonly accepted rules of debate, much less rules for logical discourse. Thus, their comments are ill-informed, illogical, unsupportable attacks without merit - and yet valid articles continue to be deleted on the basis of the commentary.

JZG, this complete lack of quality control and the sad results to Wiki content is infuriating to anyone who objectively examines an issue and takes the time to read the supporting literature. I'm beginning to believe the entire Wiki premise if fundamentally flawed, and am seriously considering leaving the project altogether, or starting the competition, done right, to reduce personal bias and require any statement supporting inclusion or deletion of any page, user, or admin to be fully qualified to remain. Dr1819 13:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem here is that you failed to remedy the identified flaws in your pet article, and nobody else cared enough to do it for you. Or maybe it could not be fixed. It was deleted b y consensus and two deletion reviews confirmed the decision - a lot of editors saw the article during that process, and it's abundantly clear that most of them agreed it had no place here. Do feel free to nominate for deletion any worthless or trivial articles you find, though. Just zis Guy you know? 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Of Self-appointed Editors, Article Protectors and Hijackers at Wikipedia.

When one discovers that some nations have blocked a site like Wikipedia and not National Geographic or even the CIA World Factbook, one wonders why. Well, the question is easily answered when they look at the current issues concerning those nations that are published on Wikipedia. Those articles are so lopsided either to the far right or far left that just reading it is nauseating. But the site is wiki so that shouldn't be a problem as all sides have equal access to make corrections right? Wrong! Take for an example when I made an effort to include a fact about the Great Wall of China as being the only man made object visible to the unaided eye on the moon. Just a minute later, someone reverts back the whole article to its previous form. Upon further investigation on the History Page, that same someone have consistently reverted every edit made recently. This someone is a registered user but not an administrator. So, who appointed them guardians of written articles? Further browsing suggest that this same someone has an agenda about what message the article should convey. Considering the amount of cleverly worded subject-bashing contained in the article, one would draw the conclusion that the article has become a mouthpiece for someone's ideology or human rights stance. This is a pity as wikipedia is beginning to gain worldwide recognition as a reliable and useful source of reference. On par even with Britannica or Encarta. For the moment it may be true for subjects on Science, History and the Arts but certainly not for Current Issues or Events. I would suggest that the foundation rethink the guidelines set forth on how the site is to be used if wikipedia is to be a respectable resource in all areas. (Free Citizen 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)).

Okay, the fact about the Great Wall being visible from the moon is a myth. But it doesn't change my view about how articles at Wikipedia can be held hostage. (Free Citizen 11:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)).

"Okay, when you get down to it I'm wrong, but in misty hypothetical land I'm always right..." Ashibaka tock 00:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the full message of what Free Citizen had to say not sink in? Even if he (or she) is wrong about this one example, he's got a point as a whole. There's plent of people who seem to think that because they've contributed a lot to an article that they somehow have the final say or a large part of the final say in that article's matters. Or worse, people who think that because they have a lot of Wikipeda experience as a whole, they can override anything a less experienced person does.

Free Citizen, I don't know if you're checking this, but the best thing you can do is stick to your guns, snce the Wikipedia administration is content with the user-created heirarchy that is such a hindrance to a successful encyclopedia. Read up on policy and learn it well, and then FOLLOW IT. That's the important part. As long as you do that, you can be as persistent as you like, and if the other party refuses to hear you out, take it up with someone in authority. Also, watch the RfAs, and if you see one of these "hijackers" (haha, good comparison actually) up for Adminship, vote them down, with an explanation as to why you are doing so. Until the Wikipedia higher-ups wake up and see what their most "respected" editors think of equal and unrestricted input, that's all you can do. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dumping this stuff here from Community Portal, for potential inclusion

About Wikipedia

You can help build Wikipedia into a better encyclopedia and wiki community by editing and creating new articles. If you create an account, you can track your changes and more.

See Help for assistance or to ask a question. For news about the site, you can read, and write for, the Wikipedia Signpost or see what's going on. The Village pump has a variety of discussions about operations, policies, technical issues, and the concerns of other Wikipedians.

Are you a new Wikipedian looking for help? Come along to the Wikipedia Boot Camp for some friendly help.

Surveys

Wikipedia:Current surveys (for current polls or surveys)

The About Wikipedia was the level 2 heading for the whole section. --Go for it! 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

GILLIN

Edward D. Gillin Ph.D is Chief of Basic Food and Agricultural Statistics Se

WATF

WATF is the agricultural trade flow presentation the FAO Statistics Division http://www.fao.org/statistics

Query

What is the correct action to take if one believes that a page has been taken over by a clique with a common non NPOV who are effectively enforcing that view to the exclusion of all others ? Springald 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Look up dispute resolution. Basically, discuss, then seek comments, then seek mediation, and make sure all the way that you don't fall into the trap of returning poor conduct by other poor conduct or POV by other POV, even if accused of it. FT2 (Talk) 20:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I tried this, and it doesn't work. I've posted articles highly relevant to hundreds of thousands of users, only to have them hijacked or later deleted because less than ten people who didn't like the subject/content, and so vociferously campaigned against it that they were able to convince some hapless admin that it was time for deletion. This ridiculously lopsided approach smacks of the Salem Witchcraft trials, and has GOT to GO! But if Wiki wants to cling to a 15th Century approach... Well, the nice thing about the Internet is that while some communities are quite adept at fooling themselves into thinking they're "the heat," other communities are more objective, and see them as they are. It's for precisely this reason that Wiki, despite it's self-acclaimed importance, is not considered either a reputable or an objective resource for information among scientific communities. We simply do not tolerate this kind of bias. Sorry, folks, but current Wiki rules allow for gross amounts of bias. I'm hoping that those who actually control (rather than admin) Wiki will develope a more appropriate and objective means of editing content than the current paradigm allows. Dr1819 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Any bystanders who come across this and would like more information, please see the Wiki is a great concept but . . . section above, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819 for further background. 75.214.202.6 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple English

Quick reply ... this version gets special note because it's basically, the universal version for all non-english speakers worldwide. There is a specialized german, french, swahili, russian, spanish... version, but for general "non english speakers" (especially if no wiki is available in their tongue), often the simple english is a good starting point. As such its a universal version in the sense that English, German, french etc are not, and is specially noted since users may look up their own language but won't otherwise spot it. FT2 (Talk) 20:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I have with giving Simple English special mention is that it is tiny. I don't know what the statistics are, but I would think that at the moment, the vast majority of visitors comes from countries where one of the languages with a bigger wiki than Simple English is spoken. So why should that visitor be directed towards Simple English if he can get more information in his/her mother tongue? -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 12:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all languages have a wikipedia (although a large number do), and many countries where English is a second language, it is not obvious that a simple english version exists. It is therefore of above average use to point it out because in some senses, Simple English is the closest that can be got to a universal version for non-English speakers, over and above any individual language, even if presently small, but will almost certainly go un-noticed by those it can benefit if not given special mention. FT2 (Talk) 16:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Western-centric bias

One of Wikipedia's "key strengths" listed on the project page reads as follows-

The Western-centric bias found in many Western publications is significantly reduced on Wikipedia

I believe that publications of most regions, nations and cultures contain some bias related to their origin and / or intended audience.

This listed strength should be re-worded to reflect Wikipedia's spirit of consensus and neutrality.

Dlowell

How would one cite Wikipedia

I suppose this is the best place to ask, but how would one cite wikipedia as a source? It doesn't fit squarely into any of the MLA's categories, so I'm currently just using the CD-Rom encyclopedia format, replacing CDROM with www.wikipedia.com, and hoping for the best. As far as I know, a purely digital encyclopedia is a unique instance which has not yet been addressed by the MLA format designers. Anyone know more about it?Eoseth 07:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Theres an article on it: Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Hope that helps! FT2 (Talk) 16:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

page needs small policy addition

most people when they first hear of wikipedia have these reservations:

written by everyone = loads of losers writing rubbish (misinformation)
written by everyone = ridiculously biased (pov)
written by everyone = written like crap (ie bad style)

and i see these points addressed nowhere on the main overview pages. thing is, wikipedia has very strict and good policies:

sources must be verifiable and cited
articles must be NPOV (neutral)
there is a strong manual of style (WP:MOS)

i would like to see the above three points mentioned prominently in the lead to show the people with a bad image of wikipedia that we do our utmost to be of "traditional quality or better".-- Alfakim -- talk 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling etc.

A few hours ago, I listed some minor corrections to be made, in great detail, because the page was editable by admins only and I didn't know that the protection would ever change. Now I can fix it myself, so I did so and deleted my description here. Art LaPella 05:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal - Reverts and Major (non-section) revisions to posts should require multiple Admin intervention

Justification: Several highly relevant articles (one mine, several belonging to others) that were deleted altogether after less than 10 people campaigned strongly against the articles. Question - since when do ten people (or less) and one admin outweight hundreds of thousands of people for whom a topic happens to be highly relevant? (no need to answer, as the true answer is very much self-evident)

Question: What protections does Wiki have in place to ensure that vigilanties who conspire against a topic they might find personably undesirable, but which is nevertheless desired by any sizeable percentage of the community, is nevertheless appropriately and accurately reviewed (in stark raving contrast to Wiki's current methodology which supports the deletion of any article found to be "uncomfortable" by even a small handful of people)? Would'nt it be far better if intelligent discourse, rather than sheer numbers, decide whether or not an article or portions thereof are actually slated for inclusion or deletion? This, in fact, is the precursor to the policy adopted by all modern encyclopedias, and it ensures both a highly objective product but one which also delves into legitimate, but less numerous and/or popular topics, as well. I sincerely hope Wiki sees it's way through to legitimizing innovation and anything else which can sometimes appear threatening to the average user.

Wikipedia hates the internet?

Now, I realize how important it is to keep "personal bios" and the like off wikipedia, but why do people crack down so hard on topics like webcomics, viral videos, flash cartoons, and other internet memes?

From what I can see, every time someone posts an article about one of these topics, a neverending deletion battle starts.

Wikipedia simply questions the relevance of these issues to the rest of the world. What is and isn't important is a gray area for the admin as well as those of us who use wiki, but it's something you'll have to live with. If you have an issue you want to talk about, but fear it might get deleted, complete the article as well as you can, and make a note that some work might need to be done on the talk page. Work together with other people who might know something about your topic that they can add to your page. There are all sorts of ways to give useless information meaning. --TransNique 23:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

introduction

I shortened the introduction, making it brief enough to fit in a Portal. My version of the introduction is a summary, echoing the article itself. The cross reference I included is the exact name of the article it goes to, which is my understanding of the way q.v.s are supposed to be. When I was doing a minor edit, there was a notice stating the article is too long. I personally think "see also" notices should be at the end of the article, to not overwhelm the reader. Here is the permanent link to my edit [1].--Chuck Marean 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

In this very long sentence: "These include automatic sections and subsections, automatic references and cross-references, image and table inclusion, indented and listed text, links ISBNs and math, as well as usual formatting elements and most world alphabets and common symbols," there seems to be a breakdown in the vicinity of "...listed text, links ISBNs and math, ..."

When you fix it, you might want to make the sentence shorter, or use bullet points, or ????. Lou Sander 23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Abdulahad karimi

اينجانب عبدالاحد اهل افغانستان ولايت غزني درد دوري وطن و تمام هم ولايت هايم را با پوست و گوشتم لمس نموده و هم اكنون دور از ديارم در قطب شمالhghgf اين كره نيلگون خاكي زمين در كشور (ناروي) زندگي ميكنم. Join Piczo!

Punctuation edit

While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information, although this usually ceases to be as significant a problem as articles mature. Inappropriate edits are often noticed and corrected within a relatively short time on most articles

Need to put a "." at end of sentence.

Fixed. I've also fixed the other punctuation error in the first reference. Graham87 07:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel terms

Under "Summary of strengths, weaknesses and article quality in Wikipedia", in subsection "Quality of information (Reliability of Wikipedia, Researching with Wikipedia)", the statement "Studies suggest that Wikipedia is broadly as reliable as Encyclopedia Brittanica, with similar error rates on established articles for both major and minor omissions and errors" is a weasel term - what studies were these? No reference is given, unless superscript [1] at the end of the paragraph is meant to serve this purpose. The link of superscript [1] refers back to this article, as far as I can see - a circular reference?

Under the "Disclaimer" section: "Reports have sometimes cited..." This is yet another weasel term - what reports? This article/page should be particularly well written, as not to serve as a bad example - note the possible irony: a badly written wikipedia article claiming that wikipedia contains well written articles...

Here it is: [2] it was done by IBM some time ago. I'll add it in now.--Planetary 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Was it this one: [3] as well? --BozMo talk 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it. --Planetary 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Just wanted to say hi before i write is this where you can get answers i have a lot of questions please let me know.

Vickie

For answers about using Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Help desk. For answers about factual questions see Wikipedia:Reference desk. Please see also Wikipedia:Very Frequently Asked Questions. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

validy

I just wanted to ask, how can we be sure as readers that the articles and everything in wikipedia are trustworthy?? does someone checks that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.203.197.98 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Not everything is, but most of it is. The whole community checks itself to constantly make improvements and check for errors.

I wanted to ask about the article as well. I just wrote a paper on the validity of Wikipedia and I used this article as my example. Where do you get all your information from, obviously there are over a hundred outside sources listed, but did you spend all of your time researching animal testing on all these different websites?Wiseeee 15:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but the one who added that citation did. And editors periodicly check citations to make sure they are valid. Anyway, most cited information is as valid as the source. ffm ^yes? 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Prizes of 2007 Asean Football Championship

161.142.221.169 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to have the prizes for Winner, 1st Runner-up, 2nd Rupper-up and 4th Place of the above championship.

As what I know, Winner is USD100,000.00 (from Singapore Association website).

Your early reply will be highly appreciated.

Thank you.

With best regards

May

Hi, this page isn't really the place for such questions. You may be able to get an answer at the reference desk. Thanks – Qxz 09:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Boring?

Should this statement be modified? "Some more boring, academic topics may not be covered as well on Wikipedia, while pop culture topics are covered in great depth." ... would seem to be POV. – Fred 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed the word "boring". Graham87 03:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"completely up-to-date"?

I'm going to change "Wikipedia is completely up-to-date" to "Wikipedia can be constantly updated", considering the size of Category:1911_Britannica_articles_needing_updates, Category:Articles_with_dead_external_links and the mother of all of them, Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. We certainly arn't "completely up-to-date"! Otherwise, nice writing. 75.214.202.6 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears this is semi-protected, so I can't do it till I log into my account, so if anyone else would like to make the change... 75.214.202.6 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Done – Qxz 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Owing to the fact that I did not know where else to turn to, I must ask this question: How do I delete an inactive or repeated page?

--KnowledgeLord 09:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you created a page yourself, nobody else has edited it and you want it deleted, add {{db-g7}} to the top of it. If you want a page in your userspace deleted, add {{db-owner}} to it – you can do this regardless of whether anyone else has edited the page. If you find there are two pages about the same subject, merge the information from one into the other, and leave a redirect behind; no deletion is required. Articles shouldn't be deleted just because they are inactive; if you think an article should be deleted for some other reason, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for other sorts of pages – Qxz 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittannica

There is a section in this article that says Encyclopedia Britanica. As this is unable to be corrected by an ordinary person, I am requesting this be fixed to say Encyclopedia Britannica, as that is the correct way of spelling it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.236.60 (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Done – Qxz 11:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

A discussion on pronunciation is going on here 205.228.73.12 10:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This was changed in Wikipedia, please update this WP:About accordingly. 83.67.217.254 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. ffm ^yes? 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)