Wikipedia talk:About

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Please do something about the chick skin errors



[edit] POV

OK, now let's look at this:

Wikipedia contains content that may be considered offensive, vulgar or profane by some users

and this:

Wikipedia contains content that is considered offensive, vulgar or profane by some users

  • The first states an opinion: "I think you may be interested in porn"
  • The second states a fact: "You told me you are interested in porn"
  • Opinion: "They may consider this to be offensive"
  • Fact: "They consider this to be offensive"
  • Opinion: "Many people may not be interested in such subjects"
  • Fact: "Many people are not interested in such subjects"
  • Opinion: "Many users may choose to stay anonymous!"
  • Fact: "Many 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] Link to remove

I suggest 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. BozMotalk
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. BozMotalk
What program is used to make this website?

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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: [1] 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: [2] as well? --BozMo talk 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, looks like it. --Planetary 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/o/Wikipedia_talk%7EAbout_9bd9.html"