Wikipedia talk:Who writes Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Origins of this page

Yer, I drafted this page after reading the pros and cons of a proposal to update the Wikipedia tagline. Given the comments by Nowither on the failed proposal, I don't want a link to a disclaimer, which is written in legalese, but I do feel that an educational statement written in simple language would be of value to new users of the Wikipedia.

My primary concern is the potential for schoolchildren to assume that all Wikipedia entries are of equally high quality. This link documents the popularity of Wikipedia among kids: Alexa's Most Popular in Kids and Teens Category. This MSNBC news article discusses how uncritically the typical student entering college approaches research: Colleges look to test internet IQ.

It is my intention to propose that Wikipedia include a new link in its navigation menu to this page (Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia), once it has been edited and reached a stable consensus among Wikipedians. Mamawrites 08:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"I don't want a link to a disclaimer, which is written in legalese, but I do feel that an educational statement written in simple language would be of value to new users of the Wikipedia. "

I definitely agree. Well-written.

IMPROVE ALL WIKIPEDIA MATH, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING ARTICLES!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.160.89 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"It is my intention to propose that Wikipedia include a new link in its navigation menu"

I still like the idea of a tagline change with a link to an article like this. We could link to here instead of the introduction with my proposal:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Or not.  :-) Oh well... — Omegatron 14:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment on the writing. If you'd like to advance your own proposal, I would support it, but I suspect that it would be doomed. I'm trying to be a political realist, and given that Jim Wales expressed his opposition to changing the tagline, I figured I would try another tactic to see if I could get support for my aims. Mamawrites 15:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I tried editing the tagline itself, but it was reverted.  :-) Then I said we should change it, and someone else came along and turned it into 1 of 543742435 different proposals and everyone hated the idea.  :-\ I've written Jimbo on his talk page about my little tagline, but no response so far. If you like it, maybe leave a comment on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#I_oppose_this_.5Btagline.5D_change. — Omegatron 15:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Omegatron, the proposal page was never just about your "that anyone can edit" idea, it was about advising (warning) users that Wikipedia articles are vetted differently than in other encyclopedias. Lighten up! ;) -- Sitearm | Talk 16:42, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

[edit] Change to "assessment of article quality"

It says: The best way to verify the accuracy of a particular statement is to find at least two independent sources which affirm that statement. So, if a statement is made in Wikipedia, and the same claim is also stated in a different source (such as a library book), it is more likely to be accurate. I do not agree that a Wikipedia article can be counted as an independent source to verify another Wikipedia article. Maybe a source cited in another article, but in that case cite the original source not the article. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 16:42, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources and Wikipedia Disclaimers

I think this page is a good idea. My ultimate goal is some way to inform readers that Wikipedia articles are not formally vetted. I would prefer every article page have a prominent link to such a disclaimer. Given the opposition to such a disclaimer, this page with the proposed navigation link seems a good compromise.

Concerning citing sources, the proper way to cite sources in research is to go to the original source. So, if Wikipedia states a fact and gives a reference, the researcher should go to the cited original source. Then, if it checks out, the researcher should cite that original source, not the Wikipedia article. (Sometimes researchers take shortcuts and fail to follow up on sources, citing them without checking them out first.)

Most readers are not researchers, however, and assume the editors have performed the proper research. Casual users (school reports, etc.) often cite encyclopedias. After all, why have an encyclopedia if you can't believe what it says?

Not every source is considered equal. Using newspapers as an analogy, it would be acceptable to cite a fact stated in the New York Times, but not in the National Enquirer. They are both newspapers, but one has a better reputation (for facts) than the other. In the final analysis, people have to decide if they will accept a Wikipedia reference or not. I just hope Wikipedia makes it more plain how articles are created so as not to earn a poor reputation for accuracy. --Wyatts 17:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Review comments

This article is simple, clear, references its sources, and moves things forward in the discussion about advising users how Wikipedia articles are vetted differently than in other encyclopediass . It would make an excellent add to the Help page list of information and resources for contributers, which is already linked on the navigation toolbar between "Random article" and "Contact us". -- Sitearm | Talk 21:57, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

[edit] Review comments as well...

I like the idea of the page. However, let's address the technical issues first: I'm not sure we admins can edit the navigation and toolbox margins - are those part of MediaWiki? (If not, we would have to get a developer) About the actual page - IMHO, we do need a non-legalized page about Wikipedia. The current revision looks decent, though it could be improved. (For example, I feel we need to mention vandalised articles - explain to readers who might click George W. Bush and see a vandalised version, for example...) I'll look it over again when I have some more time... In the meanwhile, I do suggest (if you haven't done so already) that you post this proposal up at bot WP:VP and WP:AN to gain more input. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I added two sentences about vandalism and reverting. -- Sitearm | Talk 01:58, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
Yeah, it's like an optimistic, non-apologetic, non-legalese disclaimer. That's a good thing. — Omegatron 02:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Omegatron! And in response to Flcelloguy's question, I know that Angela recently made a proposal, which was implemented, to add a permalink option in the toolbox menu options for article pages. So I don't think it would be that difficult to add a link to the navigation menu, if we can assemble the right kind of support. Since I'm still so new here, I'm not really sure how to go about doing that. Does anyone have any advice? Mamawrites 11:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive of the comments on my proposal at the Village Pump:

[edit] Proposal for a new navigation link

I propose that Wikipedia include a new link in its navigation menu to the page Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia. My primary concern is the potential for students to assume that all Wikipedia entries are of equally high quality. This MSNBC news article discusses how uncritically the typical student entering college approaches research: Colleges look to test internet IQ. This link documents the popularity of Wikipedia among kids: Alexa's Most Popular in Kids and Teens Category.

There is precedent for adding a new menu item to the toolbox; User:Angela made a proposal within the past few months for a "permanent link" option to be added at the bottom of the toolbox menu. It appears in all main articlespace pages. While users of the MediaWiki software may not make use of a link that says "Who writes wikipedia", I bet they would all appreciate a link called "About this site" or something similar. Ideally, this link would be customized for each installation of the MediaWiki software.

What do others think? Is this worth asking the programmers to do? Mamawrites 11:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not convinced any one in the target audience will click it. Though I do think a very interesting article could be written ont he subject. RJFJR 14:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's important to have such a link in a prominent place. I've heard too many stories of people using Wikipedia as a more authoritative source than they should be, and getting burned by vandalism, POV warriors, and the like. — Omegatron 17:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't really think a link to Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia would be necessary, but I think that having an "About this site" is a great idea! Perhaps right under "Random article"... Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
About Wikipedia is linked at the bottom of every page already. Something like "Who writes Wikipedia" could be considered for addition to that article. --Michael Snow 01:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I asked for a link on that page (it's protected, so I can't just insert one myself). I still think a top-level link in the navigation page would be valuable, though. Mamawrites 08:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:About isn't protected. I think the link there is enough. The permalink was a tool that needed to be on every page, whereas information about the project can be found easily enough via the about page so more links aren't needed. Angela. 23:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I was confused; it's the disclaimer page that is protected. I have added a link in Wikipedia:About. Since Angela doesn't think the top-level link is needed, I'll just continue my alternate strategy of linking Who writes Wikipedia to lots of the places that are mainpage links... it'll take two clicks to find, but hopefully people will stumble across it through Help or Wikipedia:About. Mamawrites 10:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rewrite

here -- 86.142.251.120 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An addition

Just a suggestion, but I think it would be a good idea to put a friendly You do! at the beginning -Dr.Bunshin 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But I don't write Wikipedia... -- 86.142.251.120 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You just did so You do! Borisshah 12:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Script Error

This is the best place I could find to put this If you go to create a new account and the user name you choose is already in use, it warns you just fine, however it doesn't clear to field, that is the unusable name is still present Salavge corvette control 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TFMR Report

TFMR stands for Trakker Fleet Management Analysis Reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimlian (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)