Talk:WikiHow

move of "censorship" from description to criticisms
Regarding this edit. Were you able to find any sources we can cite showing this as a criticism? While I agree that censorship is certainly valid grounds for criticism, when I refactored this article a few months ago for the purposes of providing citations and improving formatting, I moved the subject from criticisms to the descriptive section as I was unable to find any attributable sources to cite showing criticism of this nature.

--Versageek 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)  ''I am a wikiHow admin/editor, I have a close relationship to the site which is the subject of this article. My objective in editing this page is to make it a properly formatted, well referenced, Wikipedia article. In addition, I periodically update the site statistics and milestones from the given references.''

GRAFITACK: 226, 113, 110 AND 112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.130.44 (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cited the talk page:

so in this fascist thought regime, how can one politely protest a deletion, or is it basically "screw you, our opintion are final"? Oh wait, don't bother to reply to this one ... or better yet, ban the dissenters. --134.84.134.46 4 May 2006 I agree with 134.84.134.46 - wiki means anyone should be able to contribute anything, not only what a small, centralised committee would approve. Why not conduct a randomized poll of wikihow users and contributors what they think of the deletion policies? --130.91.156.225 10 July 2006
 * Hope this helps. CA387 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! - The one domain I had excluded from my search when looking for criticisms of wikiHow was wikiHow.com itself. It seemed too much like navel gazing. Thanks for adding the cite. :) -- Versageek 04:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikihow is sort of communist. It needs to be a little more democratic, if not anarchistic. Cjinaz 19:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cjinaz, wikihow is very much like a communist country. If the admins don't like it, then screw you. I remember they deleted a whole bunch of Massie Block things just because an admin didn't like her and the articles didn't even go against deletion policy. They're a bunch of nazis. Kenny&#39;sLover 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I may, I'd like to mention the discussion pages of articles on wikiHow. The process by which the administrators decide on if the article should be deleted is by popular vote.. If there are more people that want to keep it then not, then the article is left. If more people want it gone, it's deleted. There may be some confusion about this, as, in many cases, editors vote without creating an account. wikiHow is somewhat unclear on this part of the deletion process- in deciding if an article should be deleted, administrators DO NOT COUNT the votes of people that do not have an account, due to the much larger number of vandals and spammers that do not bother with an account. So, in this regards, maybe they are a bit. Besides that, the Massie Block incident was no different. The main article, How to Think, Look, and Act Like Massie Block, was a merge-to source for many months. It soon became a cesspool for anyone to just add anything on, and was soon in violation of MANY rules, such as being mean-spirited, low-quality past being able to be saved, and I believe there may have been some illegal things, believe it or not. So, since it was much too long to edit back, and it was clearly in violation, it was voted to be deleted. After that, the Massie Block articles were treated in the exact same way, and the votes went the same way. There are currently FOUR articles about Massie Block on wikiHow, which should be enough. Besides this particular incident, I see no way that wikiHow can be considered truly communist. The administrators have only a few extra powers: delete articles after the voting has said to do so, change titles by request, block vandals. The blocking is monitered closely. To call wikiHow communist and to say that the administrators are biased is untrue and unfair to the people that put their hard work into it. It may not be a perfect site, and it may have some members that are, in fact, biased and going against what you would expect, but we try to keep that out of things. 74.242.22.30 03:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the administration often excercises the power to overturn the popular vote, or simply disregard it altogether. For instance, see [this discussion]. One of the administrators keeping watch of this article cites a popular keep vote as justification for overturning AfD, though the talk page (which is where AfD votes are cast) very clearly shows overwhelming support for the article's removal. Many of the AfD nominations were actually removed altogether, simply at an administrator's discretion. This falls in line with some of the criticisms this article points out. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in that particular case, it looks to me as if the REGISTERED USERS voted more to keep it. That's the thing about wikiHow that few people seem to realize- unless you are actually registered, your vote in the deletion process is NOT counted. That is to keep people from posting elsewhere on the Internet how horrible the article is, then NFDing it, and then having people who haven't even read the article, nor contributed in the site in any way, coming en masse to delete it. Also, that was one of wikiHow's most controversial articles.. In cases such as that, wikiHow tends to try and figure out if the reason for NFD is liable or not, and, if it is not, and yet the votes are for it to be deleted, it tends to be considered a "mistrial" of sorts. That is, it is considered that opinion of the NATURE of the article's content, such as gay rights, abortion, etc. is what the users are actually debating on the discussion page, instead of the actual article itself. It's rather akward at times, however, that is not bias on the administrator's side. 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.30.46 (talk)

MySpace Page
wikiHow now has an official MySpace profile. Reference Ayudante 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is wikihow so astonishingly useless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.37.247 (talk) 01:59, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I'm so upset, I wanted to create an account on Wikihow, but since people have been vandelising like crazy on my IP address I can't make one. Kenny&#39;sLover 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Note on discussion
I removed some of the discussion on this talk page per WP:SPAM. Please discuss ways to improve the article. 68.209.235.149 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Myspace page link
There was a question in an edit summary on the history page why the link to the myspace page was removed. I was the editor who removed it after taking a look at it and seeing nothing going on...the last update was June 2007 when the page was created, and there are only a handful of friends. Myspace is an iffy link at best, and I didn't think the link added anything to the article or the understanding of the subject, but instead reinforced the not-so-nice comments made earlier. The link could be easily added when the page gains momentum. Flowanda | Talk 23:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
Instead of boldy removing this section altogether, please discuss your edits first and reach a consensus with other editors. Thanks. 68.209.235.149 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a criticism. WikiHow keeps trying to follow me on twitter. At least 10 times I have denied WikiHow and every time they pop right back up wanting to follow me. Can someone tell WikiHow to quit "twitter stalking" me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.228.72.1 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Since I'll be reverted if I don't do this...
Apparently some people get upset if you remove un-sourced junk from articles and get rid of cruft-magnet "criticism" sections, I'll explain the material I've removed:

And who says this other than a couple of Wikipedia editors? See WP:V.

One part is referenced (a simple statement of fact), the other part is more "critics argue" junk. WP:V.

More "critics argue" junk. WP:V

If you have a problem with this go argue with Wikipedia policy. This sort of crap doesn't have any place in an encyclopedia article.

Love, Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 06:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I cleaned this section up per POV issues and weasel wording, but don't feel that the entire section should otherwise be removed. In fact, I will do some research later to see if I can give this section more detail. 68.209.235.149 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You tried to clean up the material that someone reverted me on. You were pissing into the wind, I reverted to my more sane version. Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no basis for removing this section altogether. Until you can establish otherwise, it remains. 68.209.235.149 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sez u. Also, I didn't remove the material altogether. I removed specific claims of "criticism", on the basis that if it doesn't have a source, it never happened. The burden of proof is upon anyone that wants to keep that material in the article. The criticism which is attributable to specific people, is still in the article, just not in a separate "criticism" section. Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've brought references in line with this section, and also trunceted it somewhat. Right now, it's looking pretty good. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, just to be clear about this section, I agree that the original criticisms were poorly written and unreferenced, though they definitely aren't without merit. The site does have a lot of issues with controversy based on article content and edit conflicts with its readers. This sort of contrasts with its non-neutral policy -- you often have one side of an issue trying to pull an article's content in one direction, and the other side opposing it. With the references, I went ahead and linked back to some examples of (talk pages) where this sort of conflict takes place. I also linked to a couple of critics' sites on the web, as to avoid directing too many references toward the wikiHow site itself. This holds the section together pretty well. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section on offensive content
I removed the section on articles causing offense or controversy because there were no sources outside wikihow used as citations, and I could find no sources meeting WP:RS. Note that non-notable websites and blogs do not meet reliable sources policies. Flowanda | Talk 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The references going back to wikiHow were used to illustrate a claim of consensus -- i.e., that censorship policies are ineffective, contradicting, and allow editors to inject their own bias into controversial subjects. The example I used -- which was actually very good -- was a discussion page and forum pertaining to the "How to leave the gay lifestyle" article which shows an overwhelming consensus for article removal, yet a few administrative editors (clearly identifiable as Conservative, per self-identified material on their talk pages) have overturned all AfD nominations at their own discretion, and claimed that the article simply stood on its own merits with no justification. This does a fairly good job of explaining itself, unless you feel there is room for interpretation. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think those sources would be fine when used alongside a reliable source, but adding the links to dispute content in this article seems like original research to me. Controversial sections do require more stringent sourcing, which forums, talk pages and primary sources don't meet. I am confused about "claim of consensus"...are you talking about edits made/reverted here or on wikihow?Flowanda | Talk 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest? I'm actually not sure how we would go about referencing this part, aside from the material I've already provided. Admittedly, finding good references is not my strongest point. What I meant by "claim of consensus" was showing how the references (the discussion forum / talk pages) are generally in agreement that the issues pointed out in this article do indeed exist. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

request for tech info
if available, could someone please put what software this used (I think I heard its either wordpress or mediawiki) thanks Ms.henrick (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the lead section, second paragraph "the site uses a modified version of MediaWiki 1.12.[6]" -- Versa  geek  19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Plans for expansion
I plan on making a bold expansion on this article in the near future. I'm a very active contributor on wikiHow, so I know quite a bit about it. Writing Enthusiast (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A Famous Man
There Is More Then 9742227 Asikhassan03 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki how
Great article. Vimala Darshani (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness... I worried this would lead to a lame joke. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Love the post thanks 109.157.98.184 (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Relationship?
Is WikiHow affiliated with WikiPedia, or not? Is it like WikiLeaks, where it has Wiki in the title but is unrelated with WikiMedia? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

How to build relationships with female King proz (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A first step would be to stop talking like a Ferengi and to say "woman". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on WikiHow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221102121/http://wikihow.tumblr.com/post/101433513326/wikihow-on-nbcs-parenthood-in-last-nights to http://wikihow.tumblr.com/post/101433513326/wikihow-on-nbcs-parenthood-in-last-nights

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Capital is weird
wikiHow in the URL is WikiHow. Every time I type wikiHow, it just goes to WikiHow. Fix it. 111.88.15.218 (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request (January 6, 2020)
Please change:

Typically, images are illustrated by WikiHow admins, usually under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike-Noncommercial license. However, users may upload and contribute images.

To:

Typically, images are illustrated by wikiHow staff...users may upload and contribute images.

(I am not sure if editing wikiHow could potentially put me in a conflict-of-interest with this article, but I am putting this here just in case.)  Awesome  Aasim  07:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 6-JAN-2020
Regards, Spintendo  08:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed sentence needs to be written verbatim. Currently, there is an ellipsis entered between the words "staff" and "users". Please clarify how the proposed sentence is to be worded by using the verbatim text from the entire sentence.
 * When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you!
 * Okay. Change to:  "Typically, images are illustrated by wikiHow staff, usually under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike-Noncommercial license; however, users may upload and contribute images."  Also, does contributing to wikiHow mean I may have a conflict-of-interest?  The COI policy is not super clear about it, but the talk page of Wikipedia states that all contributors of Wikipedia may have a potential COI when editing that article.   Awesome  Aasim  19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"...the talk page of Wikipedia states that all contributors of Wikipedia may have a potential COI when editing that article." I'm not familiar with what talk page you're referring to. Without having seen it, I would guess that this might be analogous to a Wikipedia editor editing the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia, which is generally not considered to be a problem. I believe I've received one request from an editor who was intrinsically involved in a certain area of Wikipedia who felt uncomfortable editing the page directly persuant to that project, which I believe was the Commons (it was actually an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who did not want to edit the Foundation's page on Wikipedia), but beyond that those situations are rarely a problem. If you were employed in some manner by WikiHow, in that you received money from them, then it would be a COI. If you're just an editor there, then I don't see a problem. The claim you are making regards how users may upload images, and I would be more concerned that the advice the sentence you're proposing is giving squares with WikiHow's official policy, more so than any possible COI issues. If you'd like to make this change then please go ahead. Regards, Spintendo  20:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I guess I don't have a COI then because I do not work there.  Have a good day :)  Awesome  Aasim  18:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Advertisement template
After noticing the  template was, my colleague User:JayneG2 at wikiHow left a message on User_talk:The_Anome asking for more information. She hasn't gotten a reply there yet so perhaps this is a better place to ask. We'd like to help address the issue but aren't sure what specifically prompted the template to be added. Also, any suggestions on how we, as employees of wikiHow, can best participate in improving the article would be very helpful. Trevor Parscal (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey there; I've reviewed the article and I can't see what might have led a fellow volunteer to think it was overly-positive, so I've reverted the addition for now. Happy to be corrected and reverted if someone can explain what they think might need fixing about the article's tone or content. James F. (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization?
Okay—so officially, wikiHow uses the trendy initial lower-case W. But when it starts a sentence here, isn't it WP style to capitalize the first letter for clarity? If not, why does the article begin with it capitalized? Shouldn't the page be more consistent, one way or the other? (I'd choose to capitalize it when it starts sentences, but I may be influenced by my disdain for trendy defiance of things that are done for good reasons.) – AndyFielding (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)