Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.
Talk archives for Wikipedia (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 > 16 >>

Contents

Overlap

There's an overlap (picture over words) but I can't edit. It's really too bad. Do your best or look on a different site.

Wikipedia Admin interviewed on Swedish Radio

Wikipedia admin Meresa Knitts is interviewed on Swedish National Broadcasting Service. She talks about protecting Wikipedia from vandals and sabotage. She feels proud to be a part of Wikipedia. Interview: Listen and learn --Bondkaka 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

pew report

I'm curious as to why nothing from the pew report has been added to this entry? Pizzachicken 18:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Misspelling

The word project is spelled projet

  • Fixed! Thanks for bringing it up. GracenotesT § 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Size of Wikipedia?

If one were to take a complete archive of all wikipedia articles, how much space would they consume? Not all of wikimedia, just wikipedia articles an everything that they include- text, images, supplementary attached video files, etc. I think this would be a useful figure to know. My apologies if I'm just not looking in the right places. Phasmatisnox 04:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

STATISTICS!!! I am sure mediawiki exposes these: How many characters, how many words, per language; How many megabytes of picture, video and audio. How big is the average article? How many times have the most edited article been edited, and what is the average numer of times an article has been edited, by date. How many visits, edits, per month, and what are the trends. 41.208.48.1 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Statistics and Wikipedia:Statistics are good starting points. CloudNine 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

the sidelines/other projects section

could someone please add that wikipedia is now on mobile/cell phones under the WAP name www.wapipedia.org please oddzag—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oddzag (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC). IIRC, wapipedia is not a wikimedia project. It may be put in the see also section, though. ffm ✎talk 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we want the Sourcewatch external link?

Do we really want the sourcewatch external link? I mean, does it really add something? And it's (partially) outdated: Bomis.com is the largest underwriter of Wikipedia, ssepp(talk) 18:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia

I have proposed a WikiProject Wikipedia to help improve the often-neglected articles relating to Wikipedia itself. I think that it is important for Wikipedia to have good, organized coverage of itself and that Wikipedia should be a featured article again. If anyone is interested, please add your name on the proposal page. — Pious7 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I have launched WikiProject Wikipedia. — Pious7 22:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Seal

Gold Seal Campaign:

TJ is not a good writer!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.39.127.250 (talk) 21:01, August 22, 2007 (UTC)


What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..

1-This page is properly cited.

2-This page has been verified.

This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this.

As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour.

(Who posted the above?) I like the idea, but I believe that the "featured content" bronze star already serves this purpose, right?
Tyler 18:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There are problems at least for American high schools that allow Wikipedia articles to be used as sources in programs leading to diplomas or other graduation certification. Because the Wikipedia permits anonymous editing where the academic credentials of editors cannot be verified, and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot guarantee that articles will remain stable throughout an academic year, most state educational authorities are prohibited by law from authorizing funds for Wiki-based educational proposals, programs, or projects (ex: California Ed. Code section 33322 on funding for proposed programs). Until the Wikipedia is accountable to the taxpayers who elect local school boards and state education officials, overcoming print publishers' objections and Wikipedia's own policies for creating and editing articles will be politically impossible. On the other hand, the Wikipedia has been and will remain a great cheat for finding "legitimate" sources on the Internet and in libraries when our articles are properly sourced by us, the editors. Of course, when we choose to include web sites that have no academic credibility in themselves as our article sources, we are just setting ourselves up for the kind of criticism that the Wikipedia usually gets as an unreliable source of citable information. Let's face it: our articles are the CliffsNotes of the Internet... when they are accurate enough to be usable. As for this Gold Seal proposal, it will work only if there is a dedicated portal to prevent users from wandering into the mass of un-citable articles that we produce, or the seal will have little or no meaning at all. Failing that, then a Gold Seal article should only link to other Gold Seal articles, or again the seal will be meaningless advertising puffery. Hotfeba 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree on any particular point. It is definately a conundrum. I especially like your comparison to CliffsNotes—that's exactly how I use Wikipedia (grin).
Tyler 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
When they are reliable, our articles are a great way for anyone who reads to get up-to-speed on most topics, which is why the reference to CliffsNotes of the Internet; it seems to be a good thing that Wikipedia articles are showing up high on the first results page for many search engines. Our problem with the rest of the world that might want to use our articles for citations stems from the premises that have always guided the Foundation. Consider the entire section at the Wikiversity project proposal on cooperative peer learning, then compare with the 100% degreed and credentialed membership of any teachers' union, all people who sat in college classrooms, heard lectures from PhDs, and marched during commencement. Those union members, previously mentioned print publishers, and others concerned with the quality of education would oppose spending tax money on any public education program where Wikipedia articles were used as cited sources.
What we do have as editors is the street credibility from writing and improving our Wikipedia articles. The same Foundation-approved policies that prevent our articles from being cited are precisely why most people (and many wiki-harvesting mirror sites) turn to our articles in the first place: We are definitely not The Man. ;)
As for improving the Wikipedia in general, it is a good idea to have another tab or window open on WorldCat, so that an editor can quickly look up some book titles to insert as references with their ISBNs. Nobody can argue about an allegedly unsourced article if a listing of local colleges and universities having the sources on the shelves is only a mouse click away. If anyone is interested in making lots of contributions that actually help the credibility of Wikipedia, then seek out articles without any references and add an ISBNed reference section at the bottom of the article. It ain't glamourous, but it helps! Hotfeba 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexa ranking

Three months moving average is down to 9. Alexa. Camptown 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mission Impossible

Since the policies prohibits discussing the topic of the article page, it's not possible to say anything on this talk page, without breaking policies - so please shut up and be obedient! Said: Rursus 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just kidding, if anyone can see through it. Said: Rursus 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an error in the Criticism and Controversy section - Bill Thompson's quote

Bill Thompson is quoted as saying 'symptomatic of much learning about information which is happening in society today.' and referenced as item [49]. That sentence is nowhere in the referenced article.

64.42.107.210 19:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Dan, guzmand@yahoo.com

A miss

Can someone please explain the sentence During December 2005, about 27,000 users made at least five edits to Wikipedia; of these, 17,000 worked on the English edition. at the top of the second section. Five edits made by 27,000 people seems like a pittiful accomplishment if it is to be true. Does anyone know the true number? Mkdwtalk 19:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

December 2005 is quite a while ago. I'm sure the number has increased exponentially since then. CloudNine 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Even in 2005, if there were 27,000 editors, they would have made more edits than only five in that month. I'm removing it as it does not make sense in that section nor is likely to be a true statement as its reference does not support its statement. Mkdwtalk 10:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it appears to be 40978 editors to all Wikipedias, but since it's data from over a year ago, it's better to get more up-to-date information. CloudNine 10:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I took that sentence to mean that 27,000 editors made at least 5 edits 'each, not that 27,000 editors made 5 edits in total... Is that waht you were getting at? --NeoNerd 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

how do I delete my search history?

When I show my boss how to use the Wikipedia, I don't want him to see that I searched him and his brother :). Could you add an option to delete all searches I have done in the past? (207.127.241.2 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

That's not a Wikipedia issue. Go to the tools menu on your browser, then select "internet options" (or something similar), and then clear your history. garik 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In Internet Explorer, you need to go to the Content tab, click the AutoComplete button, and clear forms. In Firefox, press Ctrl + Shift + Del, then select Saved Form and Search History and press Clear Private Data Now. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tools-Internet Options-Clear History.76.110.82.251 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This article, Linterweb and History of Wikipedia

I was just curious about WP:CFORK and the aforementioned articles. Any comments? --FR Soliloquy 10:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been 7 days since I request some feedback regarding this subject. I will take action into my own hands now as per WP:BOLD. --FR Soliloquy 04:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry for that

Yeah, the one who vandalised this with the "LOOK AT THE TOP OF THE FREAKIN PAGE" was not me. My brother told me about him doing this, but I had no idea he did it on my account. Gah. My apologies. T_T XFactorInfinity 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fork of Citizendium

Citizendium is a fork of Wikipedia.

There is no fork of Citizendium (or atleast none thats being discussed here). This should be rephrased for clarity. 82.69.168.181 15:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article shows partially protected

With the semi-protection to this article it seems to be always vandalized. I just would like to know what use it is to semi-protect if the vandals can still attack it. I have come here a few times to try to see if I could help with the list to help the article at the top of this page but every time reverts are happening to vandalize and thus it seems it would be difficult to accomplish any editing here. Thanks for anyone insights. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

An upcoming movie about Wikipedia

An upcoming film or movie

 This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future events.
It may contain tentative information; the content may change as the event approaches and more information becomes available.
Perhaps, the film’s movie poster.
Perhaps, the film’s movie poster.
Main article: Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story.

"Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story"Official Website is an upcoming documentary film which aims to document the growth and effect of Wikipedia on the Internet and its attempt to keep a record of all human knowledge[1] as well as exploring how the concepts of free software and collaboratively-created information systems (particularly Wikipedia itself) are fundamentally changing media, academics, politics, culture, and well, basically everything.[2] The movie is scheduled to be finished in 2007AD and it will be released in America and worldwide due out in spring next year or 2008AD. Among the main casts are Jimmy Wales, KRS-One, Lawrence Lessig, Ward Cunningham and Brewster Kahle will play in the film as themselves.[3]

References

  1. ^ Gibson, Michael Ferris. "Main Page - Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story - a Wikia wiki." http://wikidocumentary.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page 25th of September, 2006AD. Wikia Incorporated and the Wikimedia Foundation. Date of access: 17th of May, 2007AD.
  2. ^ Anderson, Jeremy and Scime, Lauren. "Web Design @ Object Adjective: Very Special Design" Open Wiki Project Summary. http://www.objectadjective.com/casestudies/truthinnumbers.htm Publication date: 12th of March, 2007AD.
  3. ^ Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story (2008). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0960864/ Nicholas Hemming Hill. Underdog Pictures, Movie release date: Spring, 2008AD.

I found this (as shown above) from its article's history page recently added in by On Wheezier Plot and extract it into here. I was just wondering out of curiosity, why was it not included inside the article? Does that movie-related-stuff has nothing to do with Wikipedia at all and why was it reverted by EngineerScotty? 218.111.203.171 10:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't need to go into that detail in Wikipedia (do we need to know where a film about Wikipedia is being released in Wikipedia?). A small note should suffice in the main article for the moment; remember, it hasn't been released yet. CloudNine 10:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Not even... it hasn't happened yet. Don't even mention it. --FR Soliloquy 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

History of wikipedia

Does anyone know the history of wikipedia. I think it would be great to learn about how it got started and so forth.

Well, History of Wikipedia does go into quite a bit of detail. CloudNine 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

wikipetan, wikipedias mascot

Wikipe-tan
Wikipe-tan

Can some one add something on wikipetan

  • This is loliwikipetan, censored on wikipedia.Lolicon edition of wikipetan.
  • --81.245.58.108 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Because the list is so long, I changed it to

 {{scroll box|text={{reflist|2}}|height=200px}}

But I thought perhaps the usage above may justify a template on its own. If you're interested, please discuss at Template talk:Reflist#Contained in a box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reception in non-english speaking countries

Why does there not seem to be much information on how Wikipedia effects cultures outside of English speaking countries? Why does the Japanese Wikipedia have 50% more articles than the Spanish Wikipedia with less than half the number of speakers? Is it because of better education or greater access to technology? What is the Japanese's perception of Wikipedia? Or the Spanish? —Dispenser 01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

While this is OR, I have noticed that creation date generally determines size of WP (given other conditions being similar) [2]. -Ravedave 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

some small error-pointing. fix if interested, or forget it.

In section "Language Editions" ---

Wikipedia has been described as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" ---> Need a singular something like "that person's" or "his or her" instead of the plural "their".


[25] There are presently 252 language editions of Wikipedia; of these, the top 14 have over 100,000 articles and the top 136 have over 1,000 articles.[1] ----> top 14 have 100000, so top 136 ought to have at least as many..?? Is it bottom 136?

76.211.227.71 08:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC) dvn

edit request

{{Editprotected}}

I see no specific request. Moreover, This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Schools

We cannot add every school that has banned Wikipedia. It's happening everywhere, even my former high school had Wikipedia on its block list. The one major example already in the article about Harvard is a legitimate example for the single reason that Harvard is an Ivy League school to which many academic standards are set. Other colleges that may have made the news about Wikipedia lack that notability and thus I feel the article should not be polluted with hundreds of similar stories. Mkdwtalk 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a Source

Is there a wikipedia policy page that says you shouldn't use another wikipedia page as a source? The thing is there's an article on a war, and there's another article about the major empires involved in the war, and some people insist that in the infobox for the article on the war itself we must put what the concensus (more of lack there of) was of the article on the major empires involved. --LtWinters 16:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Encarta doesn't source itself, Mlb.com doesn't, etc. — Deckiller 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I thought, but is it stated somewhere on a policy page so I can use that as proof?--LtWinters 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS and WP:SPS (Wikipedia is self published) --h2g2bob (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
And lets not forget WP:SELF. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--LtWinters 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

However, a lot of people (like myself) believe that the validity of any article without citations or sources (and decent ones at that) can be questioned at any time. I mean, come on. Anyone can edit it, so anything without a source could be questionable. 24.247.207.18 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV footnote

I don't know where to put this, but footnote 34 is supposed to refer to the neutrality of the editors, but the footnote is empty. I don't think its neutral at all, but biased towards the current center political view in the United States academia and corporate media. The claim at neutrality is ridiculous, really, and needs a better footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.219.71 (talk • contribs)

I think it was a mistake. I have fixed - thanks for bringing this to our attention! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

About the "Awards"...?

Why does it says first $10,000 then it says in the parenthesis $12,700? =S --190.40.99.35 06:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a good question. $10,000 USD converts to 5,035.16 GBP (pounds). What the $12,700 converts to I have no idea. I have put the $10,000 into US$ and fixed the exchange rate until someone with a reference that has the amount in its currency can correct it if its wrong. Mkdwtalk 11:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Founder of Wikipedia

Hello all. I'm replacing the following:

"The project is currently operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization created by Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. "

with

The project is currently operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization created by Jimmy Wales, who claims to be the founder of Wikipedia. Larry Sanger, an employee of Wales at the time, has disputed this, and claims that he was a co-founder with Wales.

I'm doing this because a. it helps to have a short sentence in the main article text itself that simply states what Larry Sanger believes, b. it's not POV pushing to include the sentence as it's not my POV nor is it the POV of Wikipedia, but Larry's, and Larry's comment had widespread press and were notable. It doesn't agree or disagree with Larry's position. Therefore it's a NPOV statement.

I should note that User:Ned Scott seems to be doing a lot of reversions of this material, no matter what is written. I would urge him to take this to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm with you on this one Ta bu shi da yu. I think its an important to note the politics of Wikipedia, including mention of a despute over the founding creditation of the company. It does not need to state who was the founder, but that it is a controversal issue. Also, this was brought up before but Wikipedia should not reference itself. No other major encyclopedic references itself, and I notice a surprising amount of self references. Mkdwtalk 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not the place to note that in the article. The sentence is describing two things, one that it's operated by the Foundation, and two, who this Jimbo guy is that created that foundation. Say "a founder" if it bothers you so much, but we're not going to start going off on the controversy every time it's mentioned in a sentence. -- Ned Scott 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Sanger claims to be a founder of Wikipedia is most certainly relevant to the article on Wikipedia. I have readded this back in. Please don't just revert like that, you are beginning to get disruptive! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a wonderful tool and concept. However, there will always be arguments. On one side, perhaps there exists a more appropriate place to insert a Politics of Wikipedia topic / section. On the flip side, removing the piece of information is costing us a valid and complete encyclopedia and perhaps way more hurtful than having it in ackward place. Rather than removing it and re-putting it back we can either: take this to a mediation as its on the verge of an edit war or we can discuss the creation of a Politics of Wikipedia section. Build and rebuilt. Mkdwtalk 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. However, it appears to me that Ned Scott is saying that the following sentence is saying that Jimbo is the founder of Wikimedia. I think we should all have another read: it says that Jimbo is the fouder of Wikipedia, and not that Jimbo is the founder of Wikimedia. Therefore, the sentence does need to be rephrased:
The project is currently operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization created by Jimmy Wales, who claims to be the founder of Wikipedia. Larry Sanger, an employee of Wales at the time, has disputed this, and claims that he was a co-founder of Wikipedia with Wales.
Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1.8 vs 'a quarter'

There are 1.84 million articles on the English Wikipedia. There is an estimated 7.5 million articles on Wikipedia. 1.84 x 4 = 7.36 which is not a quarter of the number of articles on Wikipedia. Introducing a factually inaccurate and relative fraction in place of a set value is in my opinion a weaker encyclopedic argument. Not only is the fraction incorrect, but it relies on a constant to maintain a set ratio: the English Wikipedia must grow proportionately to that of Wikipedia. A true value is factually accurate and can be changed accordingly with out relying on a ratio. It solely relies on a single point value: the article count for the English Wikipedia regardless of all Wikipedia articles. Mkdwtalk 11:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertissement

One thing this article fails to explain is the lack of advertisement in wikipedia. Even Wikipedia:Advertisements states the potential revenue as one of the worlds most popular websites.Considering that they chose to take donations, in stead of millions of dollars in revenue, seems like something that would at least be highlighted. Rodrigue 17:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would rather ignore some words telling me how white my shirts could be, or whatever, than wikipedia go under because, let's face it, it's a free service and not many people are willing to pay for a free service. I'm sure you can make millions from google ads if they just slapped it onto the bit of the page where it tells you to donate please. I was going to tell wikipedia itself about this, but there's no contact email address! Let's start a campaign! ElGenius 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fork of Citizendium?

The Fork of Citizendium section needs to be removed.

67.142.130.19 01:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain. The Citizendium is an important fork from Wikipedia. Not only does it contrast its original concept, but its purpose puts Wikipedia in perspective -- not to mention that its developed by a key person in the foundation of Wikipedia itself. Mkdwtalk 08:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with it being in the article, but it doesn't needs it's own section. It's not Wikipedia, its in many ways the opposite. The text that was in the section, incidently, was entirely inappropriate. It talked about Jimbo Wales being a de facto leader, didn't say anything about Citzendium itself and just said that Jimbo supported it. No context, somewhat POV, and most definitely not well written. I have removed it. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikitube idea

I've had an idea of combining the functionality of a wiki with a video based application of youtube. Basically wikitube would work the same way as a wiki works, but instead of text, users would be able to edit videos and multimedia content. It would recuire an application that would make it very easy to cut, paste, rearange and connect videos or parts of videos to make up an altered version. A very simple, basic and easy to use online video editor that visitors vould be able to use to rearange and reshape to make a better presentation of the information available of those videos. A record would be available so that visitors would be able to go back and sift through the history in case someone made a mistake. It would probably have a database and an entry type system sort of like the one already in use by wikipedia. It would also be possible to add text and hight quality images in a not conspicuous place, like under the video screen, that users would be able to access for more information. The additional content could even be another video itself, so that users could shift to that video if they felt like taking the video in another direction. Basically it's a very ritch multimedia contect that anyone could edit with a bit of practice and would include all types of myltimedia like videos, pictures, and sound.

For example, visitors would be able to watch a video and see something on the screen like an ipod that would flicker when a mouse is pointed at it that would take the viewer to a new video or page about that item. Users would also be able to connect parts of videos together if they feel like a smooth transition could be made from one video to another. Basically it would be like watching television that would never end because the videos would always lead to somewhere else, but the user would be able influence the overal direction where the video goes.

In another example, the software would analyze the users mouse movement patterns to determine the users interest and preferences and accordingly decide which videos to play inserting articles and sounds at sounds at particular times to enrich the experience. In a later version the user would also be able to provide imput or feedback through the keyboard and possibly microphone / camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes (talk • contribs)

That is a VERY good idea. It would be a GIGANTIC project though, so you'd need loads of help. ~Crowstar~ 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!!! ITS CALLED YOUTUBE. 76.110.82.251 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot

Could someone make a new screenshot? The current one is from when Ian Thorpe was on the Main Page, so the TFA doesn't have an image and is somewhat unrepresentative of how the page normally looks. ShadowHalo 22:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about? I don't see one with Ian Thorpe. In fact, the main screenshot isn't even that old. --OuroborosCobra 00:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Scratch that, I was looking for a picture of Thorpe instead of reading. Feel free to ignore me. --OuroborosCobra 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Would someone change the number on the screenshot?rabmny 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree; the numbers seem to have changed quite a bit since this image was taken (from 1.5 million to 2 million english-language, as well as many in other languages, with several languages having "moved up" in status due to their article counts. Just makes sense to update this one fairly often. RobI 20:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

"Its primary servers are in Tampa, Florida, with additional servers in Amsterdam and Seoul." isn't important enough to make the already lengthy introduction even longer. I removed it, but User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington reverted my change, but without giving any counterargument. What is it? --rtc 06:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

Should anything be mentioned about Wikipedia being in the media at the moment due to the wikipedia edit about Chris Benoit's wife dying before anyone had even found out? Arrowny 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's a temporary blip on the radar. If anything should be noted about it, it's that unreliable info or original research can creep into Wikipedia, but is also reverted. Use it as an example in the main text. Personally though I don't think it's necessary in this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I do not think it belongs here at all. At best, it belongs in a Wikinews article. --OuroborosCobra 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia, a project of Wikipedia?

Is Conservapedia really a project from Wikipedia? I am very progressive and very green, something quite the opposite of many people on Conservapedia, but I in fact respect their opinion (as I do with almost all opinions), but that site is filled with hatred and aversion towards anything and anyone! Homosexuality on that page is almost equal to being a massmurderer. The section there about homosexuality could be the last thing someone who is struggling with his/ hers homo-/bisexuality could have read, just before he/ she commits suicide. Or perhaps that some people see that page as a fiat to engage in gaybashing. I know, those are not the most likely things that could happen, but it CAN. And that is just about the article on homosexuality. If Conservapedia is part of Wikipedia (in whatever way possible), is there something/ someone who is controling Conservapedia? And how on earth can the people from Wikipedia, approve the articles on Conservapedia? Should it even be mentioned in this article? --Robster1983 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a Wikimedia project at all. I'm going to rewrite the section to express that... now. bCube (talk · contribs) 07:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Logo

There was an article in the New York Times last week, beating on the Wikipedia Logo. It said some of the foreign characters in logo were improperly represented. I am no linguist, so I have no idea, but maybe someone should check it out, and add this occurrence to the "In the media" of the "Wikipedia" article. --HockeyInJune 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone agree?

"Wikipedia is meant to be a Universal Repository for all human knowledge and wisdom in our known universe"

Anyone Agree? or is this WAAAAY to Ambitious? Even for Wikipedia?

Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 06:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That would work, except many people still don't trust Wikipedia, and to be a universal knowledge repository everyone on Earth would have to be a very active member of the site. Magicallydajesus 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Screw that. When I meant All human Knowlage, i was thinking about all encyclopedic human knowlage. Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 04:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires referencing to reliable sources. MUCH knowledge has not been published. And, wisdom? If you want academically-agreed-upon knowledge, start with Wikipedia. If you are looking for wisdom or insight about something, a Google search will get you much farther. Friarslantern 21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For every intelligent, well-informed contributor helping Wikipedia improve, there are numerous unqualified people who will edit anything that they think they have some level of knowledge about. This takes away all of Wikipedia's credibility. While it's a useful and imaginative tool for the community, the numerous errors, gaps in information and unqualified contributors make Wikipedia unreliable and very poor source of knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.251.81.14 (talk) 20:10, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

This page should not even exist, it is a blatant exersize of vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.156.61 (talk) 16:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

New York Times Article, July 1

I don't know for sure if Wikipedia likes to be self-referential like this, but there's an article in the New York Times magazine this week about it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

72.80.9.170 12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Jennifer, 7/4/07


love this site it helps with everything keep up the good work...

Nine things that we need to know about Wikipedia

There is an article in vishnum.wordpress.com about wikipedia which is accessible here http://vishnum.wordpress.com/2007/07/06/what-you-can-do-with-wikipedia/

This site(Wikipedia) is amazing..!

BEST DAMN SITE EVER! -King SweaterHead 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"I got it off Wikipedia" new slogan. 76.110.82.251 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering :P

Isnt wikipedians editing the wikipedia article a conflict of interest? Since people who have a COI with some subject are discouraged from editing that article, shouldn't the same apply here too? (I am not seriously suggesting this, btw! Just this random thought crossed my min that since all who edits here are wikipedians, we all have a COI!) --soum talk 13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think at some point rules need to give way to practicality, and there is no practical way for non Wikipedians to edit this article if we want it to exist. It does mean that special care needs to be taken when editing it. --OuroborosCobra 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A good point, both of you. That 'special care' does not seem to be present, however, as certain sections of the article do sound too much like an advertisement. Maybe it should be tagged so that more editors will review it and productive edits can be made to make it as unbiased as possible. Magicallydajesus 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia the video game

It would be cool. You could squash AI Vandalizers, or, if you really want to vandalize without hurting the site, you could defeat AI Vandal Reverters. Not an anon anymore!!!! Yeah!!!! 18:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Not an anon anymore! Just so you know, this is the place to discuss improvements about the Wikipedia article, not for general discussion about the articles topic. If you have an idea or a proposal, go to WP:VPP. For general chitchat about wikipeida go to the wikipedia IRC channel. ffm ✎talk 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Why play a virtual version when you could do the real thing! Please see the Recent Changes Patrol. GizzaDiscuss © 09:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that Wikipedia doesn't benefit anyone in learning or finding helpful information about anything. Its more based on opinions and to confusing to try and work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.143.176 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lamest... Video... Game... Ever. 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.82.251 (talk)

Breaking up citations

Is there any problem with breaking up citations as I did here? It seems much easier to read and edit. I restricted myself to that paragraph because I have specific plans for the citations therein. I am concerned that such a huge change might be difficult for people to check; or perhaps there are other objections I haven't thought of. At least no one's reverted it yet... Tualha (Talk) 12:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Isn't this a conflict of interest that we are writing about ourselves? We need to complain! FunJulie 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. Instead of making a new discussion, look at previous ones on this talk page or in the archives. --OuroborosCobra 23:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Try 'Just Wondering' a couple spaces up. Magicallydajesus 03:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Article about Wikipedia documentary film deleted

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 13#Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story. This film does have articles on several other non-English-language Wikipedias. Badagnani 19:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion on this article only, not on other articles that have been or should be deleted, and not on articles that you feel should be undeleted. If you feel it should be undeleted, follow the proper procedures. --OuroborosCobra 23:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Please do not remove this section of the article. The Uncyclopedia is a more notable parody of Wikipedia than a quote by an American comedian. If you wish to contribution to the article you may do so, but replacing one very noteworthy section for another is unconstructive. Whether or not that newly added section is beneficial to the article I will leave to other editors. Mkdwtalk 09:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First, it's Uncyclopedia. Second, it's a recurring joke in mainstream media rather than a project hosted by Wikia. Third, please make a note such as "see talk" next time rather than using an automated tool designed to combat vandalism, as this is considered inappropriate. Salathi 09:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well argue all you wish. Edit summaries are just that, summaries of the action done which was a revert to a previous version. My arguement was appropriately brought to the article's talk page. On a second note you should know there are two different problems here. One being that you are deleting a paragraph that should belong in this article, and the other that you are adding a relatively uncited and not very important paragraph in its place.

"It's 'Uncyclopedia" -- that simply is not an explanation or justification for the removal of that section. Uncyclopedia was created and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation to expand and feed parodies of Wikipedia. It's content has grown greatly as well as its editor and reader base. It has an accurate citation and is definitely noteworthy. If you wish to 'add' your section below the existing paragraph about Unencyclopedia that is fine and as I said above, I'd leave that to the other editors to decide its play in the article. Mkdwtalk 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the fact that you call it Unencyclopedia, not trying to say it's unimportant. Salathi 09:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, not entirely. You also mentioned that he should say "see talk" and that he shouldn't use an automated tool designed to combat vandalism to revert your change. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It had to be done

I have tagged this article as sounding too much like an advertisement. While some of you may disagree with me, I firmly believe that this article does not deserve it's good status. This is an important article, a persistent issue, and a serious accusation, so allow me to explain myself as best I can.

The first thing that betrays this as an advertisement is it's use of statistics and figures, which are often used, particurlarly by advertisers, to circumvent lack of other facts. While Wikipedia's numbers are impressive, throwing them at the reader all at once is too much.

This is also an issue when it comes to Wikipedia's list of awards. While the list is impressive, that does not mean that it should all be thrown at the reader in a clump.

These two things are an elementary example of standard advertisement tactics, which is to say, that just like an advertiser would, this article throws one positive point after another at you, in a sad endeavor for attention, not unlike a commercial or billboard.

Another clear example of advertisement behavior is the repeated glossing over of Wikipedia's negative points. The question of Wikipedia's reliability, and the susceptibility to vandalism is a serious issue. It's the main reason so many people in the world don't use it, the reason my high school librarian spent five straight minutes badmouthing it, imploring my civics class not to use it, and the reason that every time I come here, and look at the words 'the free encyclopedia anyone can edit', I get a little giggle in my brain that someone is likely vandalizing an article right now. The article about Wikipedia should be the one place where we can put those doubts thoroughly to rest, not give them a brief mention, then give a single, lonely piece of evidence to support our claim.

An article can be as long as it needs to be to adaquately, eloquently, and fairly express it's point, so there is absolutely no excuse for this article's 'adverty' air, and I will not allow such blatant mistakes to continue. There are other issues involved with this article, but that was enough to read for now.

Sincerely, Magicallydajesus 00:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"repeated glossing over of Wikipedia's negative points"? It's mentioned several times in the intro and has a whole section (and article) dedicated to it. 82.32.40.219 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I actually think it's quite NPOV in tone...many of the negative points are covered in sub-articles. In any case, it's not written like an ad. RxS 04:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't gloss over Wikipedia's bad points. Statistics are cited well, I don't see the problem there. This isn't a promotional piece. That {{advert}} tag shouldn't be there. I'm glad it's removed now! Please, don't put it back. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT

Are there any Wikipedia users who are in primary school (or made any edits while they were in prim school)? 124.179.224.113 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course but that's not important. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

i amXelas211 23:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Me too, but as CambridgeBayWeather said, that's not important. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 19:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The sound file for the pronounciation of Wikipedia

It's half-broken. It only says 'pedia', which of no use to anyone. Someone please fix it. ISAYsorry 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. ffm 17:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't for me, using Firefox 2.0.0.4 and a motley crew of plugins. It does work for me using IE and Foobar2000 as my ogg plugin. So there's something application-dependent going on. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.5 and my ogg files play on windows media player. This one worked for me. garik 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Metadata

Para has twice reverted the section I added today, Metadata, giving a different reason for doing so each time. The section briefly describes WP's use of microformats and inviting other contributors to describe WP's other uses of metadata. The former alone is certainly notable; WP is already one of the most prolific users of microformats on the web. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This article just isn't the right place for that kind of technical detail. In addition to what I mentioned in the edit summaries already, the article doesn't and shouldn't explain about html meta tags, persondata projects, parserfunctions installed in Wikipedia, or html classes with fancy nicknames. I know that you as the creator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats want to promote microformats anywhere possible, but you have to understand that not everyone wants to see them mentioned as much as you do. They are not notable here, unless maybe if there's a reliable third party source somewhere praising Wikipedia metadata related to some real achieved additional value? --Para 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh. So its OK to mention other sites which use microformats, but not Wikipedia. Most of the content of you comment is baseless, PoV assertion. Mentioning PERSONDATA would be perfectly relevant. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: Adding a whole section for just one sentence is definitely overkill, if that's all the information you have then the sentence would be better worked into an existing section. However, reading through the article I don't see anyplace in the article where such a sentence would be appropriate. Your best bet to get such a thing in this article would be to find sources supporting Wikipedia's uses of microformats as being culturally significant and add the mention to the Wikipedia#Cultural significance section. There may be other articles for which a mention of Wikipedia using these microformats is more relevant, such as the article on microformats or the articles on the individual formats.

Also, FWIW, I don't find anything in Para's edit summaries or comments to be "baseless, PoV assertion", although one was perhaps an initial misunderstanding of how the listed formats work. The worst thing I see in this discussion is one reply failing to assume good faith. Anomie 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"I don't find anything in Para's edit summaries or comments to be "baseless, PoV assertion"" - I'm surprised you missed this baseless falsehood: " I know that you as the creator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats want to promote microformats anywhere possible".
The disputed text makes no claims of "Cultural significance", just as (to cite one example of many) "The operation of Wikipedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free and open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database" does not. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OpenID

Has there been any progress with OpenID?--NeF 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Presentation

Hello, The word "database" in the sentence "upon the MySQL database" is hidden by the image "Wikipedia receives between 10,000 and 30,000 page requests per second, depending on time of day.[26] More than 100 servers have been set up to handle the traffic." 137.146.132.120 19:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an issue with your browser, as it displays fine for me, in both IE 7 and Firefox 2.0.0.6 and is nowhere near that particular phrase. However, I'll see if I can't force the image to the left, hopefully that will fix whatever your particular browser issue may be. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations in introductory paragraphs

Are there meant to be citations in the introductory paragraphs of the article? I read somewhere (WP:LEAD or WP:SUMMARY) that citations should be left out of these paragraphs, and cited later on in the article. Any other thoughts? –sebi 07:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Leads should have citations, if needed, just as with any other part of the article. See WP:V for when they're needed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Software and hardware

Is the "Software and hardware" section too technical? Should we remove it and just tell people who are itnerested in it to go see some more detailed article on how wikipedia servers works? RJFJR 15:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny

Isn't it odd that there are spots that need citation in an article on the encyclopedia itself? XD

why dioesn't it tell you yoru reading on wikipedia right now? XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.85.39.121 (talk) 14:08, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Citation is needed because the statement does not meet the verifiability guidelines. As for the second part of your question, it's because this article also appears on mirror sites such as About.com - so not everyone is reading Wikipedia right now. =David(talk)(contribs) 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you save pictures?

I don't need to explain what I mean. Bhbhbhhh 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Ariel♥Gold 05:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Malformed Citatation

Citation 77 displays as:

77 ^ {{cite web |url=http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1497858 |title=Main Page |accessdate=2007-01-28 |date=[[2007-01-26 |work=Uncyclopedia }} I am reluctant to edit the article.

I would prefer a more experience editor or admin to make the edit. --Dan Dassow 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - now fixed (the date didn't have a final ]]). --h2g2bob (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

NOT Person of the Year

On this article Wikipedia claims to be the person of the year but according to Time Magazine, Wikipedia (along with Facebook, MySpace, etc.) only contributed to the real Person of the Year: "YOU".

"The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you." -Time Magazine article: Time's Person of the Year: You (emphasis added)

The article doesn't even cite Time Magazine itself, but rather a third-party news source (BBC News), which itself says again that "YOU" is the Person of the Year, and only credits Wikipedia as providing technology:

"Time cited websites such as YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and Wikipedia, which allow users to interact with the web by uploading and publishing their own comments, videos, pictures and links." -BBC News article: "You" named Time's person of 2006 (emphasis added)

The article needs to be adjusted to contain only factual information. The phrase (the last paragraph of the first section):

"Wikipedia, along with other interactive websites such as YouTube and Facebook, won the Time Person of the Year, awarded to the most influential of that year in 2006. The award praised the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world made possible through the World Wide Web."

...should be changed to...

"Wikipedia, along with other interactive websites such as YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook, was credited with providing the technology that allowed the community at large to be their own greatest influence when Time Magazine declared 'YOU' as the Time Magazine Person of the Year." (Cite the Time Magazine article here)

This seems to be the most accurate way to place this here.

GMerriment 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


"Films" section

{{editprotected}}

A whole "Films" section for one sentence seems a little unnecessary. Can that sentence be moved into the "Cultural significance" section instead? -- 81.129.46.180 10:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is really uncontroversial; disabling the editprotected tag for now, discuss it here :) Melsaran (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Not really uncontroversial? Odd – I'd have already done it myself if I was able to. I must have missed some deeper issue; please enlighten me -- 86.138.38.167 16:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
OK... the lack of response suggests nobody has a problem with it, so... let's try again.
{{editprotected}}
A whole "Films" section for one sentence seems a little unnecessary. Can that sentence be moved into the "Cultural significance" section instead? -- 81.129.46.180 -- 86.150.54.58 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Done, mostly in the spirit of be bold (which, unfortunately, anonymous editors can't do with this article). If anyone disagrees, reversion and discussion are in order. GracenotesT § 02:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussions

The article cited by the Signpost http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118712061199497533.html, makes a good point. The article doesn't talk about discussions, or discussion pages. Should it? They are a vital part of what makes Wikipedia unique. Hires an editor 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia articles in public domain?

Are people allowed to use WP articles in their essays, books, websites? Are people allowed to use WP articles in commercial products? Is it legal for a textbook to use WP images?

Kniito 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:Copyrights --Pmsyyz 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
... but not never, even for commercial distribution. See GNU Free Documentation License or use the link of the same name at the bottom of this page. Still, the Wikipedia is not recognized as a credible academic source in peer-reviewed published research, which is a minimal practical standard for avoiding student-instructor conflict on any graded paper in school or university work. Hotfeba 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What is that thing on top of the letter "U" of "Audio US"?

There's a little black thing on top of the letter "U" of "Audio US" in the first and second line. It looks like a triangle and can not be clicked seperately. Is it just on my computer or it really does mean something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kniito (talk • contribs) 11:24, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

History of financial source

Recently I've read from newspaper saying that Wikipedia was originally run by the money Jimbo Wales made from a pornographic search engine he started, which now he seems to be shame of it. Why is it not written here!? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 11:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is addressed at Jimmy Wales#Bomis, as it should be. =David(talk)(contribs) 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Size of wikipedia

Does anybody ever sit back and think OH MY LORD WIKIPEDIA IS GIGANTIC?????? !!!!!!! ITS HUGE!!!!!!!!! The coverage is just out of this world literally. I sadly rarely see praise of it though ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's big. But commentary on that would have to struggle to avoid NPOV violations. 2,410,938 articles ... Yep, that's a lot.  :-) =David(talk)(contribs) 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh, how would comments on that violate NPOV? Neutral Point Of View. Just as long as it isn't a huge commercial on the front page it would actually be quite intresting to hear, and could someone please tell how much space does wikipedia take I'd like it on my computer just kidding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace keeper II (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning the number of articles doesn't violate NPOV, and the lead paragraph does. But commentary on it, such as Blofeld's comment that "OH MY LORD WIKIPEDIA IS GIGANTIC" and "ITS HUGE" becomes an opinion, albeit one held by most people. Amazement is not encyclopedic. =David(talk)(contribs) 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not so big that others can't mirror it on a daily basis. Hotfeba 18:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Screenreader comment in "Criticism"

This might be a good point, but it feels tacked onto the end of the criticism section:

Due to the large amount of links and content citations needed, Wikipedia is not very compliant with screen reading technology.

Maybe you should consider taking more comments & updates to your website. First of all, learn to respect other peoples time and then get a life. After you have done both of those successfully, I would like you guys to stop the website and choke on it. Wikipedia, ur future is in the gutters!Yash kk 09:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some writing about public criticism of Wikipedia for accessibility, with a citation? Granted, there's perhaps a sad irony in requesting links & citations, given the content.... Thanks!

Eeblet 02:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

An Inquiry into the User Account Functions

Please, I would like to know how to make my Wikipedia signature in a different font. Advice? St2-Dot 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • copy someone else who has a good sig.


text needs fixin'

"nearly 2 million articles"

scrub the nearly part —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.164.46 (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed. =David(talk)(contribs) 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

should this be deleted

seriously whats the point in this vid?

I don't understand. What video? Oh, and please sign your posts. =David(talk)(contribs) 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

should this be deleted

seriously whats the point in this artticle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.161.152 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because Wikipedia is a website and all major websites have an article..? → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia is copied to several mirrors, such as About.com. On that site, this article is far from pointless. =David(talk)(contribs) 22:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)