Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 10

Nineteen-Eighty Four references?
I would really like to know about the authenticity of the claim that Wikipedia is supposedly often compared 1984, I have already requested this to be verified, which has been removed once. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Avador 07:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Right here: Note the tag at the top of the page, however.--Planetary 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, but as it says, it should not be taken seriously. Avador 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seems, to object I am going to go ahead and remove the claim. Avador 00:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm?
I just came out with the idea to search for this article and here it is. Wow. Anyway, is it alright if we would put up "Wikipedia presents Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia?" Ok, it sounds funny, definetly.

Well, more seriously. Wikipedia is titled as "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." Should that not be the title for this article?

And maybe that first suggestion. Reject or accept it, I don't really care. 9/03/2006

pronunciation
Ah, and now we have a wayward detour for hours at length on how to pronounce the damned name. Only in the US could people be not sure how to pronounce something, and only in the US would they waste so much blithering time on it.

Why worry? You can't pronounce 'Linux', so what difference does it make?

The simple pronunciation for us plebs who don't understand IPA is given as "We-key-pee-de-ah". Is this really correct? I and everyone else I know tend to pronounce it more like "Wickey-pee-dee-uh". - Abc30 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And I and everyone else I know pronounce it as "We-key-pee-de-ah". "Wiki" apparently has two pronunciations. Ward Cunningham says that "we-key" might be closer to the original Hawaiian pronunciation of the word. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, well I guess that begs the question, which way do most people pronounce it? And also, how does Jimmy Wales pronounce it? Perhaps the answers to these questions will show which way it should be given on this article. Afterall, just because "we-key" is the original Hawaiian way, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the way this article should say it's pronounced. I thought the purpose of this website was to document the way things are, not the way things are meant to be. Perhaps both pronunciations need to be given? Abc30 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While the two above are probably the most correct, I've heard several regional variants. A lot of places pronounce it "Wick-uh-pee-dee-uh." Not sure if this is notable/verifiable enough to be included in the article, but when you're an internet entity you will tend to get lots of variants in pronunciation. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, there's enough worthwhile discussion on the topic of pronunciation that it should probably be moved to a footnote to avoid cluttering the intro. Ingoolemo talk 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm perhaps the (pronouced...) bit should be removed as there are obviously different ways of saying it. I mean, the way Crazycomputers has put it sounds nothing like how I say it... -- Al e  x  (talk here) 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone??? -- Al e  x  (talk here) 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statistics
Is it possible post some statistics or graphs regarding the percent of members who contribute to wikipedia. For example I remember reading somewhere (I can't remember where or else I would have edited it in myself) that something like 2% of the users are responsible for something like 70+% of the articles. Anyone have any official numbers for something like that? Danyak501 06:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Assertions
I'm deleting the following uncited assertions

-, although most obviously disruptive edits and comments are quickly found and deleted by other editors. - Critics of Wikipedia have also viewed it as an oligarchy which is controlled primarily by its administrators, stewards, and bureaucrats, or simply by a small number of its contributors. -, and that the group dynamics of its community are hindering its goals. - Proponents contend that open editing improves quality over time, while critics - Some critics have suggested that Wikipedia cannot justifiably be called an "encyclopedia", a term which (it is claimed) implies a high degree of reliability and authority that Wikipedia, due to its open editorial policies, may not be able to maintain. However, - This criticism was articulated by fake-news pundit Stephen Colbert who termed such reality-by-consensus as "Wikiality". - This was identified as a common flaw by some studies.

Fact check 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, about the proponents part: m:Eventualism, just permalink any revision. Tito xd (?!?) 04:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales
Jimmy Wales' picture is kind of small, I suggest using:. Also either Larry Sanger should have his picture here or Jimmy's picture shouldn't be here or Wikipedia is bias. Pseudoanonymous 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Why sigh, cutie pie? 16:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it biased? It's no moe biased than putting a picture of George Washington of Columbus on the United States article. He's the founder of Wikipedia and current head of the Wikimedia foundation; he has every reason to be pictured.-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 13:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia!
Wikipedia, urgh! I'm sad, that I've heard of it! No one need to know too much about everything!213.240.234.212 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Forum?
"Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." So, where would I find a forum to discuss Wikipedia in general? Specifically, Doug Engelbart's video from 1968, http://www.invisiblerevolution.net/video-68-large.html in which the computer program that he's shown is, in my opinion, an excellent representation of an ancient Wikipedia. Everything that can be done in this Wikipedia can be done on his old computer program, albeit with the caveat that his is from 1968, so it doesn't have simple hyperlinks -- you'd have to position the mouse "bug" (cursor) over a word then hit the special key sequence to follow it. Banaticus 09:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, closest you'll find will probably be the village pump or the Esperanza coffee lounge. There's also a lot of off-topic and on-topic discussion on the Wikipedia IRC channels at Freenode. Luna Santin 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to add a picture or symbol onto their user page?--Cutie fo eva 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An odd little suggestion.
My friends and I were sitting around discussing the wonders of Wikipedia and Shandar commented that Wikipedia is basically the Hitchhiker's Guide Lite. I had to agree that this was a wonderfull observation and then foolishly suggested that we should add that to the article on Wikipedia, so here I am trying to figure out how to get this refference of Wikipedia being HHG Lite into the article on Wikipedia... Yes I'm a newb. 70.178.73.37 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)John "Griff, Master Deciever" Chidester 9/11/2006

Wikipedia mentioned in new Weird Al song!
Weird Al parodied Chamillionaire's "Ridin'" with "White and Nerdy", the lead single from his new album. In it he mentions "I edit Wikipedia" as a sign of extreme nerdiness. Apparently, I'm not nerdy since I only edit Uncyclopedia. Ha. Wait, I am very white and nerdy, never mind. Anyway, his new album is coming out on the 26th, and remember, you aren't a true nerd if you don't buy it. --guest/extreme n00b

Wikipedia's Web Services
Is there a project for a wikipedia api i.e. web service?

Lol, the wiki page on wikipedia is not editable. The irony, it burns, it burns.
 * MediaWiki. Tito xd (?!?) 04:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant like a .wsdl web service, to conduct queries and access methods from a server into wikipedia's databse.

Upgrading the Wikipedia logo?
Isn't it time to upgrade the Wikipedia logo, maybe render it with steep parallax mapping instead of rendering it with just ordinary bump mapping?

GA pass
Well-written and comprehensively referenced. The weight given to criticism seems somewhat excessive to me, and could be balanced by expanding other parts of the article. The section on timely information is quite brief for example, only containing the Eatrthquake story. TimVickers 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are wrong.

Me too.

More about the forks
Hi I think we should mention more forks that have other goals than wp (maybe start a new article or chapter "Forks of Wikipedia"?). Forks that haven't been mentioned are Wikiweise (german) and Citizendium (by Larry Sanger), both trying to create a encyclopedia with a more restrict userbase. I know these projects aren't worth a new article but I think they should be mentioned somewhere. cheers --84.169.102.222 08:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers Retired Jerseys Controversy
We need an advocator *someone who represents Wikipedia litterally* over on the "Hartford Whalers" wiki. The problem is this.

The team left in 1997 and became the Carolina Hurricanes, and the city owns the team name still, and retired 3 player's numbers in January of this year. And a user by the name of RGTraynor. And he's been IMO bossing people around.

Any help would be appericated. i suggest a poll.--Dr. Pizza 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
The part where Brandt refers to Jimbo Wales as a dictator might not even be necessary at all, I don't know, but the following bit about "most wikipedia users don't consider him a dictator" is clearly weasel words. I'd say -most- wikipedia users have no clue who Jimbo Wales is. The 5-10% who do most likely don't think he's a dictator either, but that doesn't change the fact that either the whole dictator thing needs to go, or certainly the weasel worded part. 63.254.143.241 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

not an external link
wikipedia.org is listed as an external link, despite that fact that, technically, it is not an 'external' link at all. It kind of is, since you can't link to the main page using and. But it's mostly for mirrors, though.-- A c1983fan(yell at me) 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello- is it true that Wikipedia seems a tool of not aligned information, thanks for discuss[link removed]
 * I don't understand what are you saying.-- A c1983fan(yell at me) 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Woah... that website is full of LIES!-- A c1983fan(yell at me) 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why lies?!! rgds
 * For a reply to the initial question, I believe you can link to the main page by typing Main Page, so it would appear like this: Main Page. Don' know why it's listed as an external link, though. -- The Great Llama   (speak to the Llama!) 14:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess for the sake of mirrors and other sites using or adapting the article; for them it would be external. *Dan T.* 21:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

'''I never knew about wikipedia at all.I love this article and i hope wikipedia keeps running like this with the contributions of the public.I also keep entering more articles in this site and i also hope others will be contriuting!!!!!!! '''

This arcticle is really cool!! Keep it up wikipedia!!!!

No, Wikipedia is ultra-weak; only poor people use this because they can't afford to subscribe to REAL encyclopedias. - Stupid poor people. They destroy the economy. - Stupid, worthless poor people. - Damn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.105.113 (talk • contribs)

Why would this be banned to edit who would do such a thing as to put stupid nonsense on such a great page.

Oi, reatard who wrote that wikipedia is for poor people. I have one question for you if it's for poor people then what the     are you doing on it then        ?!?


 * Maybe he is poor. - Pernambuco 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Monday Reference?
Is the note regarding the fact that January 15th, 2001 is a Monday really relevant? IMHO, it should just state January 15, 2001, without the "Monday"--it's irrelevant.

Site address
In the history section, it says that Wikipedia launched at http://www.wikipedia.org - it should really have a slash at the end: http://www.wikipedia.org/ 85.147.58.212 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also someone should make a summary for "in popular culture" 85.147.58.212 13:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Spell check
Whie doze winkipidia haz no spell check. Google dose have a spell check. I spell things wrong and cant find things on winkipidia.

Yes. And while you're at it, establish some higher literary standards. Your articles contain so many errors and gross abuses of punctuation it's not funny.

And Wikipedia must NOT be 'the world according to US nerds' as it is today.

Establish a better writing style - look to the major UK outlets so you learn to use real English - and stop assuming everyone on the planet was born in the bloody US.

Well said that man! A spell check would be very useful and make Wikipedia seem more professional. And your comment about the American-centric nature of Wikipedia is quite true. English is an international language and spelling, punctuation and articles should reflect this. Time and time again Wikipedia seems to be targetting the USA and not the rest of the world. Xania 22:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I concur that a spell check would be useful Daemonic Rite 14:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I highly agree with all previous comments. Definitely the spell check (maybe installed in all articles, also; but only able to be used by long-time members.  This shouldn't be installed in their talk pages or user pages). Maybe a grammar check, too... Randfan 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with Randfan those could be highly useful. 71.236.79.160 16:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Establish a better writing style - look to the major UK outlets so you learn to use real English - and stop assuming everyone on the planet was born in the bloody US."
 * I'm not sure about the population of G. Britain, but it's a lot less than the US'. Not everyone is born in the US, but the majority of Wikipedia users are, along with the fact that many other languages are used as well, in almost every article. Perhaps you should consider making a seperate "British" English language for Wikipedia to use. However, it is true Wikipedia should have a spell check, it's frustrating reading through a sea of errors, or writing them yourself.

Same account for all wikipedia services.
I recently found out that i cannot log in to wiktionary because it is different from wikipedia. I need them to coalate (connect) so i can use the same account for all wikipedia services.

P.S whats uncyclopedia? (they plagarized ur stuff i dunno why.)


 * Sorry, this is the talk pagefor the encyclopedia article on WIkipedia. We don't discuss wikimedia projects here. If you want, you can just sign up at WIktionary with the same username and copy your user page...

Uncyclopedia did not "plagarize" any of Wikipedia. If you are talking about the design of the site, that is because it is merely the design of MediaWiki, the software both Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia run on. If you are talking about the whole "edit this page" idea, that's not exclusive to WIkipedia eiher. -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    03:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Old news
just found this on the web. it's a bit dated, but it talks about how google would help host wikipedia? anyone know any more information? 

--165.230.221.64 16:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Images Broken
Is it just something wrong with my system? Maybe. But every image on Wikipedia is broken.216.177.178.194

You're not the only one... -Freebird- 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Substitute for Myspace?
Since I'm still practically new here, I have a question: one of my friends is currently using Myspace. I think Wikipeia is a much better place to meet people. She's shown interest in becoming a Wikipedia user because she thinks the discussion pages are a great way of meeting friends--like on Myspace. Is this true? Is Wikipedia a bonding place for discussions, or is it a place for us all to just be serious? Janet6 12:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Serious all the way I'm afraid. Myspace is much better for social interaction, off-topic discussion on WP pages is apt to get deleted. Chris Cunningham 12:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm only speaking for myself, and I haven't been here all that long (only since the end of January), but I think that it's a little of both. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, but it is an encyclopedia that is written in collaboration, and quite naturally, that collaboration in writing articles spills over into interactions of a more social kind with other people. But the reason Wikipedia exists is because of the encyclopedia, and that aspect should come first. --Kyok o 12:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We're here to write an encyclopedia. We want to have fun and build a sense of community while we're doing it, but people who don't want to build an encyclopedia should go elsewhere. Johntex\talk 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * After rereading the original question, I should point out that article discussion pages aren't intended as meeting places but rather as forums for discussing changes to the related articles. As has been said before, a certain amount of socializing is tolerated, but the main focus really is the encyclopedia. --Kyok o 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that if you do want to socialize, then it's best done via user talk pages or in places like the Esperanza Coffee Lounge. Hope this helps. --Kyok o 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)