Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 11

Question
For some reason I can't view pictures on this computer for Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is the only problem site I have for pictures uploading. Anyone know why this might be? 71.173.60.113 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm....

nope.(aren't I helpful =P) Hostile Hams 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

NEW QUESTION
Including only text files and pictures, among english version entries only, what would be the memory (roughly) required to download the entire Wikipedia site (again, only in English and with text and pictures only)? In other words, how much memory does it take for Wikipedia to store all the english files?

Thanks

Multilingual
I just had to edit multi-lingual back to the normal English multilingual. I seem to remember that MS spell checkers don't recognize the word and that may be the reason why the hyphenated form has come into being. I started working in the area of multilingualism back in the 1960s before we needed to bother with computerised aids - and then, I can assure you, it was without the hyphen! Ipigott 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Draconian Content Control
Being a new wikipedia user, there's much I have to learn, but I was a little taken aback by what seems to be a draconian editorial policy on the site. it appears that articles are frequently deleted or edited for no good reason. i'm aware that we want to maintain a crop of good credible articles, but it seems that users are oftentimes too hasty in putting an article up for deletion, often citing neologisms or unreferenced material as the reason. as long as articles are accurate, verifiable and don't put forward a POV, shouldn't they merit inclusion? Linguelle 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You should repost this in Village pump (policy), where it is more likely to be seen and discussed. Luvcraft 20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken "in other languages" Links
I think the four links at the bottom are some kind of broken.

hsb:Wikipedija

cu:Википедї

diq:Wikipedia

zh-classical:維基百科

91.6.24.44 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to fix this and it should be working correctly right now. The languages now correctly appear in the language menu instead of the bottom of the page. Wim 22:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Article deletion
I think this is worthy of going in the criticisim section. Wikipedia admins frequently delete articles (such as brian peppers or the tourettes guy ) even if the public objects to it. Most non-members agree that one person isnt enough to decide weither or not an article should be deleted.


 * I agree. There are too many self-important Wikipeds? Wikipedites? who feel it is their unfailing universal responsibility to censor material in a near Stalinistic fashion. A better system, involving greater consensus, should be in place to determine what articles are worthy of deletion. A discerning eye is one thing. Petty vindictive behaviour is another.
 * It's Wikipedians. Please sign your comments using four tildes at the end ( ~ ). --WikiSlasher 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Replacement for Talk?
I'd like to see a replacement for the Talk page. One that resembles a forum package, such as Vbulletin. My biggest gripe with Talk is that other users can edit your comments. Also would be nice if it could support threaded replies...
 * That would make reading the talk page comments much easier. I like the idea. SmartGuy 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with this idea, but adding support so that other users cannot edit your comments would be good enough. -ShogunPK
 * I sometimes fix spelling and grammar errors on talk pages when I see them. Is that not the point of Wikipedia? Of course people can edit your comment in a bad way, but people can vandalize the pages too. 75.153.221.227 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative(s) to Wikipedia
Is there a website that offers the same amount of content and information as Wikipedia? I need something more reliable and not as biased. I've searched the web and I couldn't find anything close to the size of Wikipedia.zfOctober 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's Google. 75.153.221.227 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the best theres no substitute!

Where
Where (on the globe) was wikipedia launched from?
 * I would say the answer is San Diego, California. Nupedia, the forerunner to Wikipedia, was originally in San Diego.  Accorasfding to a San Diego Union Tribune article I read recently, they were still based here when the idea to use a wiki was hatched.  At some point, according to the same article, they moved to Florida because of cheaper rent for office space.  Headquarters of Wikipedia is now in Florida.  The article does not make clear whether the Wikipedia name was first used in San Diego.  The article is here. Johntex\talk 05:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would you need one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.216.143 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

English terms
No offense, but I live in the USA (Florida, to be exact) and I'm tired of all the England terms. I would like more American terms. I'm exhausted from all the English stuff. I need stuff to be more U.S.A. accurate.

"Wikipedia" (sic.) is a spelling mistake of what should have been called Wikipaedia! Also, common spelling mistakes such as "color" (sic.), "flavor" (sic.), "humor" (sic.) abound and are really annoying to native English speakers in the rest of the world, including Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans as well as the British. Perhaps "Wikipedia" (sic.) should be retained for use by those from the United States of America who are too lazy to embrace the English language used by the rest of the world and "Wikipaedia" should become the official English language version. 86.131.3.156 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "American" is not a language! Jesus, learn to read, you've made it this far. --Randall00 20:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have two choices: ask to start a new Wikipedia about and for US specific, starting with a clone of the general Wikipedia; or start a campaign to have this Wikipedia converted to a USA-terminology specific one. You may get somewhere, but I suspect that you will get nowhere.  If you feel strongly though, then you can but try :-) --Ordew 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it converted USA-terminology specific. Now how would I get it done? How do I start the campaign? My sister doesn't believe me because of all the editors.


 * If you think you have the skills to run such a campaign, you should have the skills to find out how to do it!

Need I remind you England came first. Also, what're you complaining about, there's plenty of American words here, like Soccer. We invented the game only to have you rename it soccer and start playing rugby.


 * England was first, and then was handed its own ass.


 * "England was first, and then was handed its own ass." - translation ? It appears to be abuse in it's tone - but does anybody know what this is supposed to mean ? --jrleighton 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What our friend is trying to say is that England originated first, then was beaten in war by its child. Belive me, I am an American, but that kind of language is entirely unnecessary on this page. ► ——mdesrosii ◄ 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ass: A stubborn donkey that will not move. 86.131.3.156 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.3.156 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Ha, I am american also. Moreover I have native ancesters so I beleive that the term "american" is a bit racist here. And, I don't really beleive the USA-english would improve the quality of the articles herein. For instance, check the one refered as JELLY and the discussion to understand what I mean. 133.87.1.152 05:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Rebelde


 * This is the english version of wikipedia. Surely there should be english tersm, not american ones. its in the title. codu (t /c ) 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, should I start a campaign for a version that uses "colour" and other Canadian spellings? If you don't understand the term, then consider making it a link to the article about it (or at least reading said article) or pointing out the lack of clarity in the talk page. Otherwise, just get used to it, this site is used by a lot more than just Americans. 75.153.221.227 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we please stop the debating over which is better, England or America. The Manual of Style says that there is no particular preference as to any particular dialect as long as the style remains consistent throughout the article, see WP:ENGVAR for the specifics. Arguing over which is better will get you nowhere.  Harryboyles  02:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So what the Americans who post on this page are basically asking is that the rest of the world adjust their spelling/references etc to suit them? We don't complain when you talk about the color of the sulfur in the center. Let the rest of us discuss the colour of the sulphur in the centre. 81.145.240.91 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Ian Hopping 30 Dec 06

Basic Idea
If users come to wikipedia with a topic (text/string?!) in mind, then they could have a good understanding about the topic and they could find some weblinks to go further. The content evolves as users use it.

Is that the basic idea?!

Forgot to add sig. :) --V4vijayakumar 12:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Search string correction
Search string correction functionality is poor. Google’s “did you mean ?” is more useful. If we enter “testdatabase” in search textbox, Wikipedia could not correct it to “test database”, but Google did it right. Not only this case, but in many cases Wikipedia fails to do the right thing. :(

Forgot to add sig. :) --V4vijayakumar 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this perhaps because no article named "test database" exists? 75.153.221.227 05:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wikipedia answers
Online editable questions and answers could be a good idea. Let’s call it as “Wikipedia answers” (Google answers and Yahoo answers). Questions and evolving answers could be a great thing. As we can see from AOL user search strings release, most users enter questions as a search query. Expecting “Wikipedia answers” soon. :) --V4vijayakumar 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Added new Wikipedia project. Is this right?! FYI, WikiAnswers --V4vijayakumar 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Content
What's so bad about original research? Isn't that what most encyclopedias, online or offline, are comprised of? I mean, come on! The editors can do whatever they want with all the bad information, but what about the good information that happens to be original research? They get to filter out original research without trying to discern the real from the fake? What's up with that?!
 * Encyclopedias are secondary sources. That means they cannot contain original research by their very definition. &mdash;  Dark Shikar<FONT COLOR="#000000">i</FONT> <font color="#000088">talk/contribs 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Plural
Tongue-in-cheek pedantry: is the plural of "Wikipedia" either "Wikipediae" (with the ligature that I don't know how to type on the keyboard that I am using) or "Wikipedias", or are both admissable with respect to the manual of style ? I presume that both are OK due to the derivation of the word. Also, is Wikipedia a proper noun at all, I wonder, or should it be "wikipedia". I suspect that the growth of the various wikipedia projects means that a lower case word is now much more in order. After all, the word "dollar" is only capitalised if one is talking about a specific dollar, such as the Singapore Dollar (or even then ?). Answers only from the equally pedantic please :-) --Ordew 17:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedieaux, obviously. Chris Cunningham 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, indeed!

Funding
Could someone elaborate on the Funding section? I rembember wikpedia had a fund raising banner (like an ad), and reading media articles which mentioned WP's large bandwidth costs, but this page doesn't tell me much (bandwidth is $321K/quarter). What would be really interesting would be a profesional estimate of WP as a private company; top 20 on the web. - Peregrinefisher 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of the phrase, "an online advertising company that caters to a generally male audience and has hosted soft-core pornography"? It reads more like a value judgement more than informative content.

A Wikipedian Portable
On Slashdot, I posted (as Pi_r_ed, but they don't allow brackets in names, so really Pi_r_[]ed) the following question:

"Why doesn't Wikipedia make their own mobile? It could be updated when connected to the computer, like an iPod, and I'm sure ads for it would replace any mentionings of donations..."

So, what do you at Wikipedia think? A Wikipedia "wPod" sort of device, with a touch screen to scroll and choose links, wi-fi to update itself, a keyboard post (or a T-Mobile_Sidekick type keyboard), for editing.

Of course, like I said above, Donations to Wikipedia would be a thing of the past. Of course, I ask for nothing else than recognition. Wikipedia has always been free, and for a small fee, can always be free. waittaminute... oh, nevermind. But, it got a (5, Interesting) on Slashdot, so it should go over well here to, right? Supermariorobot 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be a really cool idea. I'd like to include the words "Don't Panic" in large, friendly letters on the cover.  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * I'd buy one, but perhaps a better idea is a Nintendo DS cartridge? Rather than another big bulky device to carry you'd only have to carry a cartridge with your existing DS. (And if you don't have a DS, they're only about $120 US, which is probably what such a device would cost anyway.) The Nintendo DS can support up to 4GB cartridges (though Nintendo only makes up to 128MB so far, the system is capable of more), and a rewriteable (flash ROM or EEPROM) chip could be used to store the information; I'm pretty sure the protocol would allow for rewriting right on the system (downloading info from wifi or USB connected to the GBA slot). With the encryption broken it's easy and legal (presumably as companies like Datel do it) to make one without even Nintendo's license.


 * I say DS as opposed to PSP because PSP discs can't be made rewriteable and I hate Sony. :) And if you're going to go the "unofficial third-party product" route you can forget PSP because Sony will practically track you down and break your legs, while Nintendo doesn't seem to mind as long as it's not piracy-related.


 * As the DS has a touch screen you could even edit articles right on the system and upload them back to Wikipedia when you get the chance. I love this idea and just might consider doing it myself if I ever get the chance (though probably using existing homebrew devices instead). I especially like the idea of putting "Don't Panic" in large, friendly letters on the cover.


 * (whoops, broke the line breaks.) 75.153.221.227 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia...the experiment
"Wikipedia has been viewed as an experiment in a variety of social, political, and economic systems, including anarchy, democracy, and communism.", I was really interested in following this up but no sources are given, at all.--JollyRogerz 05:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

After some wanderin about i found these:
 * Is Wikipedia an experiment in anarchy (by Larry Sanger)
 * Wikipedia sociology
 * Embedded Academic studies of the Wikipedian Community
 * Wikipedia in academic studies

Any of them (or perhaps none of them) may be suitable as a source/s. I'm not even sure how one would go about embedding these into the article... --JollyRogerz 12:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

the introduction
I think that we should change the definition of wikipedia on the introduction: from "Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based free content encyclopedia project" to "Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based free content information bank; do you realy think that our english wikipedia is a encyclopedia, in the classic meaning? I dont think so. 88.155.171.119 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an encyclopedia. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 14:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know a liitle about wikipedia; (-: I am writing on the German language wikipedia. you can be happy or not, but website with articles about everyone who did something that looks to someone important, can not defining himself as a "encyclopedia" in the classic meaning of the word. 88.155.171.119 14:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just stating the facts of what Wikipedia is and is not. Please read encyclopedia. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * i read the english article about "encyclopedia, and I think it is a little strange. I, and a lot of other people, dont think that encyclopedia is "contains information on all branches of knowledge"; I think that encyclopedia should be all the knowledge that we have to remember, to preserve and to save for the next generations. 88.155.171.119 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple English
Why not add more simple english pages, especially under scientific stuff? Some of the articles are so overloaded with just stuff that it's annoying and confusing. I would do it myself, but I know practically nothing abouut the articles I'm talking about. (Obviously, or else I wouldn't be looking under simple english).

-- Not actually a member, just some guy 10/23/06


 * You can try the Simple English Wikipedia.  Harryboyles  07:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't know where to ask this...
I was wondering I've recently changed my name from Jim Bart to Cali Drama King, but WP still resognizes me as Jim Bart, how do I change this? Cali Drama King 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly on your talk page while putting help on it. Also see Changing username. London UK  ( talk ) 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Exercise in Valuation of Wikipedia.org
If you are interested, here is a nearly heretic but interesting exercise:

What would Wikipedia.org be worth if it were a for-profit? http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=626

Question
Is Wikipedia supposed to be humorous or serious?

I don't know, either way it's gangster, just joking; more serious less humorus, don't put silly jokes on articles it is considered vandalism, if you like humor you can go here to uncyclopedia. Pseudoanonymous 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aww, there goes my chance to place "WHOAAA INFINITE PARADOX" on the top of the wikipedia article. X) Ah yes, good old Uncyclopedia. Chef Brian 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fewer admins?
Is it me or are there less Administrators with respect to the number of users on wikipedia? acorrding to Statistics the population of users is 2,599,916 while we have only 1,038 or 0.04% of administrators. Didn't it use to be 0.07? This is troubling Pseudoanonymous 04:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it troubling? The admin to member ratio changed.  I would assume the general population has grown faster than the admin population.

Proposed suggestion: Automatic signature insertion for talk pages
I have come across talk pages where people don't sign their posts with four tildes. Not only is it annoying but it opens the way for flame wars directed at the wrong people, or at the poster who did not sign. Why not have it so that the four tildes are automatically entered when the text is sent? I'm sure there might be more involved but why not something of that nature?Stovetopcookies 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF is a Wikipedian?
I know, but the word should be explained before or immediately after its first use in the article.--Greg K Nicholson 06:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, whoa there! Getting a little testy with the faux swearing are we?  Such terms have originated out of the clever humor associated with its wide use.  I will give you a short example from the electrical engineering field.  Before the term picofarad (a term used in denoting the size of condensers) was devised, the term used was micro-microfarad.  Engineers often nicknamed these "mickey-mikes."  This term could have found its way into documentation.  This is just an example, but it shows how humor can find its way into the real world.Stovetopcookies 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really address the concern raised. "Wikipedian" is not a common English term (yet!), so it should be defined for the reader's benefit. I added a brief parenthetic explanation. Djcastel 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * should "Wikipedian" be not an obvious enough term, "Wikipedophile" is always open.
 * We won't be using Wikipedophile any time soon for obvious reasons. --WikiSlasher 05:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

British and Wikipedia
There is too much UK spelling or references on wikipedia. Wikipedia was created by a man from ALABAMA...that's as American as it gets. However, when one looks for British people say john wiki says: John was a man. When one looks for American john wiki says: John was an American man. Also, color, labor, not colour and labour. Finally, I nobody cares about how high 50 cent got on 'UK charts' or the percentage of British kids think timbuktu is real. just because the website begins EN.wik... doesn't mean its English. USA! --Blambloom 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I reckon it does, otherwise it would be us.wikipedia.org. Does it really matter that much? CloudNine 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what does us mean as a language code?? English is called English, regardless of what country it is spoken in. Georgia guy 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter, as these spelling differences don't affect the understandability of an article? It may well be that things like "the percentage of British kids think timbuktu is real" is just the data easily available to the author, there will be studies from America used as references as well. There also isn't a huge culture/society difference between the UK and US so chances are that data like this will be similar between the 2 countries anyway. Chris Lewins 13:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With reference to the music charts thing, the US charts aren't popularly used, nor accurate really of the American view.

Last I checked, Wikipedia does not simply provide an American view of anything. Seems pretty dumb to exclude the United Kingdom out of information. Then again, you sound like the kind of guy who still thinks the South won the war. 71.173.60.113 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference
...or leading little Christian sects, or getting into Wikipedia edit wars, or boring their friends... --Striver 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia
i think that thers material relevant for this article

Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-30/Wikipedia_valuation

--Pixel ;-) 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

'Network reliability' section
'Network reliability' is a fairly generic and short section (it could be applied to many sites that have those kind of problems). I'm wondering what the consensus is on deleting the section and associated images, as it doesn't really add to the article much. CloudNine 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

. Editiing Problem... Furthermore, whilst a person whom I would prefer to reamin anonymous, has told me that he was trying to edit a page of a school he used to go to, called St John's College (Portsmouth, England), and he added a sports section, which I must say was rather good. But somehow, this section was all of a sudden deleted. I do not know if this was done on purpose, but every time I try to add something to that page, it doesn't work. If this is a techinical problem, then may someone alert me now. All he is trying to do is tell people about this school's excellent sports program, but someone is too arrogant or embrassed, or I don't know what, but can you please let him be, or if I am making a mistake, please tell me. Thank you.

Politically Motivated Editing
While arguably quite difficult to prove, or show accurate/unbiased examples, I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed that many of the articles relating to conservative politicians or media personalities on the U.S. site, which previously may have had a "Criticisms" section added to their page, have mysteriously had these sections removed, regardless of an end to the alleged criticism or not. Alternatively, many liberal politicians or media commentators may have additions of "Criticisms" added to their page, which are not thoroughly explained or could be seen as illegitimate claims. DJWhamo 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not evident to me why an encyclopedic entry should even include a "criticisms" section. I find far too many editors confuse NPOV with providing every possible POV in existence. Most entries are overwritten. 69.139.75.80 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's probably because it's one of the Wikipedia' core policies (see The neutral point of view) to represent all points of view and let readers to make up their mind by themselfs:


 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.--Pethr 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Total Agreement
I too have noticed that, such as when I was adding the ex-section to that St. John's topic

Although, it was not because of political views, it is the same basic principle. Furthermore, it is funny how that happens? No offense to anyone, but oddly enough, stuff like this happens more to conservative views, and their views are always the ones which are far more attacked.

A Proposal for Plagiarism Guidelines for Wikipedia Contributors
In the aftermath of Daniel Brandt's accusation in November 2006 that there was (a modest amount of) plagiarism evident in Wikipedia articles (e.g. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/11/04/1162340080487.html), I went looking for guidelines for Wikipedia contributors.

I found guidance in relation to copyright infringement, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F

But I found little relating to plagiarism, apart from the not-entirely-helpful and not-entirely-accurate "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted" that appears on Edit-pages.

I think guidance in relation to plagiarism should be provided.

I published a refereed paper on 'plagiarism by academics recently. I've adapted some of it in order to develop a proposal, which is presented below.

I can't quickly see where I should put it, so I put it here.

Correspondence to Roger.Clarke@xamax.com.au.

__________________________

GUIDANCE TO WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTORS RE PLAGIARISM

Generally: (a) large blocks of text from other sources should *not* be included within Wikipedia articles; (b) ideas, paraphrases and quotations from other sources *can* be included within Wikipedia articles; (c) where a Wikipedia article makes signficant use of a particular source: (i) it is not necessary to provide attribution to a source within the text;  but (ii) reference to it should be included in the recommended reading list at the end of the article.

__________________________

DISCUSSION

Plagiarism is a lot more complicated than people think. Serious plagiarism occurs, but most isn't all that grievous. Appropriate approaches depend on a number of factors, including the nature of the work

The following is a general discussion of the nature of the work: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Plag0602.html#RTFToC29

That paper doesn't mention encyclopaedias, but an encyclopaedia approximates to a textbook. The following is a specific proposal relating to "Evaluation Criteria for Plagiarism in a Textbook": http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Plag0602.html#RTFToC24

The most common approach adopted by textbook authors is "no citation within the text, but attribution to the source in notes at the end of each chapter or the book as a whole". That's appropriate and effective for textbooks. So it would seem a sensible default approach or benchmark for encyclopaedias as well.

Generally, a reference work: (a) draws on other works; (b) includes a lot of information that is generally known;  and (c) makes the information readily accessible (and of course smothering it in references conflicts with that aim).

The need for attribution increases with: (a) the degree of originality of the copied material;  and (b) the size of the copied material: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Plag0602.html#RTFToC31

In the case of an encyclopaedia, copying without attribution is likely to be of greatest concern where: (a) there is verbatim or near-verbatim copying of: (i)  a whole article;  or     (ii)  segments of substantial size (e.g. at least a key paragraph);  or (b)  copying of ideas that are highly original.

Even in these cases, general attribution (i.e. no attribution within the text, but inclusion of details of the source in a reasonably adjacent bibliography, e.g. in a recommended reading list at the end of the article) is sufficient: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Plag0602.html#RTFToC32

Copyright is a completely separate issue from plagiarism, and is the subject of separate Guidance, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F

Plots per day reference not working
The second reference says I don't have permission. see here. - Peregrinefisher 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Competition
Are Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, and such traditional encyclopedias Wikipedia's competitors? Their so different. At their core, these are are traditional paper encyclopedias and wikipedia is a free-content online work. If so, how do we which encyclopedia is ahead. There is no market share or sales to base a comparison. I don't think you could compare number users or articles, accuracy of those articles, or hits to the website. Wikipedia is so different from Britannica. How do we know which encyclopedia is winning.--Wikiphilia 05:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia statistics
Why are the Wikipedia statistics (e.g. about active Wikipedians) not accessable anymore? Markus Schulze 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted a question on Bugzilla about a month ago (which was at least a month after it had gone down). I received a reply from user:Brion Vibber, who said that it was down "for the moment due to a privacy issue." I then posted another question a couple of days ago asking what he meant and when it would be back up, and he deleted my comment. I guess that answered my question.--HQCentral 01:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How does that answer your question? It would seem like a slap in the face to me. --WikiSlasher 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians
Is Wikipedians really a word? Surely in the article they should be referred to as users? (I'd change it, but the page is protected). 82.32.8.6 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added an explanation, using the word "contributors" since that includes editors and admins, and is easily intelligible to the non-Wikipedian. "User" could mean someone who just reads Wikipedia. Djcastel 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note
I couldn't find how:

"Note: Because Wikipedia articles are made by many people, some articles may contain untrue information, so, before using Wikipedia in a project make sure that the references are from trustworthy sites."

found its way into the popular culture section but it was certainly out of place so I removed it. raptor 01:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm New
When writing or editing an article, how do you add stuff like subheadings, tables of contents, and those funky colored boxes that say stuff like "this article is a stub..."(does it have something to do with html, or whatever the heck it's called, because if it does, I have no clue how to do that kind of stuff). Nineteenninetyfour 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This page is solely for suggesting improvements to the Wikipedia article; if you have a question, try asking at the help desk. I just welcomed you, so I hope the links there answered a few of your questions. &mdash;The Gr e at Llama talk 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Catch 22
Is this article ever really going to be neutral when it's written by Wikipedians? Robocracy 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, maybe we could reverse the semi-protection. Only anons are allowed to edit this page. :-) theProject 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, it is important to monitor this article for neutrality and accuracy. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

wiki
skiedn wimkis slkieee


 * I second his idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.231.88 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC).


 * What? --WikiSlasher 06:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Learn to spell. This is an ENGLISH Wikipedia. So speak English!Chavmusiksux 18:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

unlock it
even if there is massive vandalism, unlock it ! 72.36.230.178
 * This coming from a massive vandal?--Vercalos 18:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't unlock it; the vandals would flood in by the thousands!-- KnowledgeLord 05:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1,500,000
It's just a few articles left to one and a half million. --84.231.172.81 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now we have 1,500,000. article. --84.231.172.81 21:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See Kanab Ambersnail.~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

unreliable site
Just want people to know that they should avoid using wikipeidia as a source of information. Too much POV and anyone can write what they want.Their policy on source of information is weak.What's worse is if they don't like what you've written,they block you. But that is not to say we shouldn't try and improve it.

Here's a good story of how wikipedia posts what the writers want to post:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

Nadirali 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali


 * You're not the first one to state this. We are aware of this and are open to the fact that Wikipedia is not perfect. If you read the Criticism of Wikipedia article and the Criticism section in this article, you can find more information about it. By the way, it's not good to refer to Wikipedia as "they" when you are writing on "it" itself.  Harryboyles  03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at your talk page, Nadirali, you're not shy of removing content and making unconsentual POV edits either. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 07:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No mention of TV references
Considering that Wikipedia has now been mentioned on the show Jericho - in fact viewers all over the world have been advised to look up Jericho (TV Series) on the wikipedia to find out about up and coming episodes!210.84.35.147 15:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Two spaces (not one) follow a period.
Just a reminder. Stovetopcookies 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not in HTML. Compare ". ." (one space typed) with ". ." (two spaces typed).  Anyway, this is not a comment for this page, which is about the article Wikipedia. --Henrygb 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an archaic typewriter-based rule, and anyway extra spaces are (in most contexts) ignored in HTML and       wiki       markup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Two spaces do not come after a full stop. You're wrong on that one; it's a common misconception. I believe that the only reason to ever add two spaces is right after a (cross) reference, but this is ignored in HTML. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 10:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You may never have heard of French spacing, but that does not make it a "misconception". This is briefly noted on a Manual of Style page, which points to some discussion on the convention.  The full stop entry also discusses this issue. — <font style="background: #3371A3" COLOR="#FFFFFF">Aluvus  <font color="DarkGreen">t/ <font color="3399FF">c  02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a misconception to think that this is the accepted standard. It isn't. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts
Story here. Interesting to add to the article. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 10:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed for Citations
I find it laugh out loud hilarious that the subsection on Citations under Criticism and Controversy contains not just one but TWO citation tags.

For the love of all that is holy, if anyone has a source that can be cited as a reference for this section, please cite it! SmartGuy 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was humourous, I must say. However, this information is covered under the Accuracy and Comprehensiveness section and thus I've removed it.  Harryboyles  10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Time Zone
I think I've looked thoroughly, but I could be wrong.

I don't think the page mentions what time zone Wikipedia operates in.

"Current time" doesn't seem especially relevant on Wikipedia, especially because there are many current times. But the "Featured Article" ... I would assume it changes at midnight. Is this midnight in Florida?

Midnight GMT? Seoul?

Oh, It is also used when signig, with timestamp. Thanks, anyway.--The Chairman 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The featured article changes at midnight Coordinated Universal Time --Henrygb 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This article - not a good 'face' of Wikipedia
I simply find it a bit ironic that the article on Wikipedia itself has stub sections and isn't featured. I mean, it's a bit embarrassing, isn't it..? New users will come here to find more about Wikipedia, as I did.. Wikipedia simply isn't represented too well by this article. Clientele 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a very difficult article to edit. There are hundreds, if not thousands, watching it and ensuring that it maintains a certain kind of quality. Changes require discussion on the talk page much more often in the case of this article. It's also difficult to write about Wikipedia from a NPOV. But eventually, this will all be fixed... I'm working on it, for one! <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 13:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Viewership
How many people visit Wikipedia per month? Using the caption "Wikipedia receives over 2000 page requests per second. More than 100 servers have been set up to handle the traffic.", that's 5.184 billion people each month. But other sources I talk to say seven, even fourteen billion access Wikipedia a month. -- Zanimum 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A page request and a person are different. One person, me, may look at 100 pages in one day.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make me 100 people. I can't answer your question myself. But I hope that explains how Wikipedia is being used by more people than there are - and certainly more than IPs. Either this, or Aliens...--The Chairman 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I know the difference, it was just a poorly worded question. This article says 2000 pages/s, or 5.184 billion pages/m, whereas the other source said 14 billion pages/s (not viewers). --  Zanimum 14:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research
Please remove image "Wikipedia-pagelink-chart.svg" from "Characteristics" section. The caption is almost as obscure as the image itself, and it all looks like unsourced original research to me. Thanks. 83.67.217.254 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's original research. It doesn't introduce any new information and is easily verifiable. Just see if you can find the links between those articles as outlined in the image. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe it's not original research, but what does it mean? To twist your words slightly, if it "doesn't introduce any new information", why is it there? All it seems to show is that articles hyperlink to each other in organic rather than hierarchical ways; Tim Berners-Lee would be proud; but the point it's making about Wikipedia is...? - IMSoP 22:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't a very great image. I'll make a new one that conveys the point more concisely later. It is supposed to illustrate the fact that wiki articles are linked together in a different way than on most sites (which operate with a typical navigation elements that lead to index pages). So it's possible to start somewhere and end up somewhere completely different, and it's also possible to get back to your original topic. It shows the "pathway" of Wikipedia. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I can kind of see that, but that really isn't unique to Wikipedia, or even to wikis in general; it's one of the key advantages of the World Wide Web as a whole, and of pretty much every hyperlinked system ever, including Wikipedia's older rivals like Encarta or the CD-ROM version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Granted, though, wikis do by design make that kind of interlinking easier, and encourage it more than some technologies; but even that observation would belong on wiki rather than Wikipedia. - IMSoP 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If (if) that's the meaning of the image, then it's more pertinent to the hyperlink article (with a complete rewrite of the caption), or even to the link article, than the Wikipedia one. That is, if we _really_ have to have that image anywhere...
 * Also, why would you put links between Wikipedia articles, which are by their own nature dynamic, in an image? Who is going to update the image? etc. Bad idea. Zap it. Thanks. 83.67.217.254 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be updated. All it needs is to illustrate the fact that wikis put much more weight on this than any other kind of traditional site. You try reading any blog, any news site, any forum or government page, and you'll find that none of them link so heavily and contextually relevant as wikis. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, in that case please use the English language, and perhaps use some official stats and back your claim with references. Please remove the picture. 83.67.217.254 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This image does not need a reference. It can be verified by checking out the articles themselves, which is quite obvious. At the very most, we should mention that these articles were linked in such a way at the time of writing, and that subsequent revisions of the articles may not be connected like that, but even that's doubtful. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 10:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you could find the Wikipedian who created the chart, and cite them as the source, but I think the universe would implode in on itself in some sort of recursive loop. Sockatume 10:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians are not reliable sources. Anyway, the main point is not that it's original research, which it is. The picture is cryptic, unnecessary, arbitrarily laid out, trying to explain a property that is not specific to Wikipedia, etc, etc. Please remove. 83.67.217.254 12:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can accept the new image and caption (although the link relationship is not necessarily symmetric, and therefore the picture is wrong), but not in this article. The concept of (hyper)link is generic and applies to the whole web, at least. I could accept moving the picture to the wiki article. 83.67.217.254 12:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I already responded to your concern that it doesn't pertain to Wikipedia; it does, as it applies to (most) wikis, of which Wikipedia is one. Secondly, this can easily be verified and isn't really any new information. It simply further illustrates the fact that the articles of Wikipedia, as a typical wiki, are extensively contextually linked, a practice it actively encourages its users to uphold. This is definitely not the case for typical (non-wiki) websites, which don't have such links as extensively as wikis do. While I agree that normal sites do have such contextual linking, it can hardly be compared with the wiki design principles. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 18:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so why do we not include a similar picture in every article about specific wikis? And as somebody already said, if this is not new information, why include it?
 * Please address all concerns, not only the ones you think you can address.
 * Also I like how in the new version "Hebrew Language" and "Language" are not linked, whereas "Hebrew Language" is linked to "Yale University". The topology of Wikipedia links is so connected that any attempt to illustrate a cross-section of it is bound to look arbitrary and misleading. And useless. And amateurish. Please remove the picture. A description in English would be much more appropriate, if still unnecessary and overly generic for this article.
 * Thanks. 83.67.217.254 18:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would check out the Hebrew language article, you'll find that there are no wikilinks to language. It's funny, I know, but the source does not reveal any language or links at all. [[Yale University has a link to Hebrew language in its infobox (its motto is Hebrew). The image is correct in these aspects. Unless you feel that it is unnecessary to explain that wikis do, in fact, have a significantly different navigational architecture than typical websites, this image is well-placed in the article, despite not having as much literary context as it should. If you feel that the description is too vague to be of use (I presume that this is what you mean with "make the description English"), then feel free to suggest one yourself. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 20:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC) PS: the information is not new in the sense that it doesn't convey a significantly new theory. The fact that wikis have this systematic linking scheme is well-known. This image serves to illustrate, as every image should be just an addition to the text of an article rather than new information in itself.
 * If we must keep this junk, please move it to wiki. 83.67.217.254 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (US links to Middle East. And so forth.) 83.67.217.254 21:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel that we should move it to wiki, please explain why (and also why it is "junk"). More importantly, it's important to realize that this is but an illustration. Like I said, it isn't worth mentioning that these wikilinks were intact at the time of the image being made. It serves to illustrate the principle, which it does pretty well regardless of whether all of the links are true to reality. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 22:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not listening. Goodbye. 83.67.217.254 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedianism: no such thing/term/concept — YET!!!

 * THAT'S MY POINT - so I'm hereby coining it!
 * Yours truly,--Ludvikus 18:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: I'd like to start a club, the purpose of which would be to discuss, promote, finance, etc., the philosophy, art, science, practice, etc., of this cyberspace phenomena — I believe we have here much more that a mere free encyclopedia!!! It is a sheer revolutionary media event of the first order, comparable to the invention of the alphabet, writing, printing, the computer, Microsoft, Google, and now Wikipedia!!! No way is it MERELY  a "free encyclopdia." Check me out with a click here:

Portmanteau
Can't we just call it a compound word? Please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.205.183.128 (talk • contribs).
 * But it isn't. :) <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 10:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On top of that, it is a stated goal of wikipedia that portmanteau eventually be linked on every single page. It's practically keeping the word alive itself. Chris Cunningham 11:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Iran blocked access to Wikipedia
According to Guardian, Iran blocked access to Wikipedia. Do we have an article about blocking of Wikipedia in various countries? I know about the one about China, but AFAIK, Wikipedia has been blocked in other countries too, like Tunisia or Saudi Arabia. bogdan 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to have one. It's actually very important that this is reported on. We should add a new section to this article about the blockings, then fork it into a new article later if it expands well enough. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

On the bias section
One suggestion would be that those who edit wikipedia regurarly are somewhat "geeks". You may not want to use that exact word. Marqmike2 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of people who edit Wikipedia aren't exactly geeks. There are a lot of people from all over the world doing all kinds of things who edit articles. An article on football may be edited by someone who you wouldn't normally classify as "geek". An article on Pythagoras may be edited by a notable mathematician. There isn't really any way to say something about whether someone's a geek or not. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of, or at least discussion of, Deletion Putsch
You should address the persistent (and important to many contributors) question of why you suddenly have an army of editors deleting articles - as opposed to devoting their time to, say, editing article content and improving layout / proofreading. This subject was recently discussed (somewhat lightheartedly) in a New York Times article. So why are y'all doing this? Are you trying to alleviate a bandwidth shortage? Why so much eagerness to excise others' contributions of so many articles? Why give a crap so dang much, and who exactly grants these editors their positions of authority anyway? If there's a logical explanation for why this has become a priority, please explain. <Br>

Obviously, I have an opinion - I quarrel with the motivation and the execution of the new Wikipedia deletion surge. If Wikipedia isn't a suitable place to record and explain small bits of our world (such as passing pop culture phenomena, for instance) then where is? I have read the deletion guidelines, the policies on notoriety, but yet I still see, routinely, these guidelines applied arbitrarily, subjects of great magnitude of interest deleted, while other indisputably lessor subjects remain enshrined the hallowed halls of Wikipedialand. And this biased, imperfect deletion policy is towards what end?

And then all the lingo of "salting" to denote banning subjects - is nothing if not mean-spirited and elitist. To deny the public the right to write about any subject -ever-again- reeks of a betrayal of what this thing is supposed to be about - a democratic submission policy about collecting knowledge - in all its pros and cons, messy splendor. That a Wikipedia cabal has been deputized to delete and ban the submission of certain subjects (and that anyone would applaud the act) seems to serve little purpose, and certainly not a democratic one.24.199.84.215 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a junkyard of miscellaneous pieces of information. Deletion policy is as necessary as anything else. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Says you. Please explain your argument further than stating it as if it were self evident. Beyond that, please explain why it's A) become such a priority to delete so much and so speedily, and B) where the checks and balances are in your deletion policy in order to guard against bias. There is a definite slippery slope to worry about here when you're relying on the odd birds who eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia to also be the arbiters of notoriety and relevance. Kindly explain why this collection of oddly motivated volunteers make up the ideal group to decide what is or isn't important information to share with the world. Seems pretty shoddy and arbitrary. More importantly of all - if the deletion process is so shoddy and arbitrary, so ripe for abuse and misuse, then wouldn't the drawbacks of instituting the policy outweigh the goals?24.199.84.215 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it is not democratic, because WP is not a democracy. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The facts according to Wikipedia press releases and page histories
I'd like to point out, for the benefit of those working on this article and related articles, that according to Wikipedia's own first three press releases, until 2004--including two press releases that I didn't have anything at all to do with--I was billed as a founder of Wikipedia. See:


 * Press releases/January 2002
 * Press releases/January 2003
 * Press releases/February 2004

Also, until 2004 or 2005, all of the articles about me, Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia, and even Jimmy gave me billing as co-founder of Wikipedia. Just thought it might be useful to point this out for those who weren't aware of it. --Larry Sanger 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out on Larry's article's talk page, he wrote the first press release and that portion of the second two is derivative of the first. savidan(talk) (e@)

Vandalism 12-8-2006
12/8/2006

My daughter was looking up information on Wikipedia on (of all things) Wikipedia, and she was presented with a very large (and very ugly, I might add) image of a woman's labia. Why?

Fixpc4u 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A template used in the article was vandalised. It's back to normal now. -- Majo <small style="color:#BA0000;">rly  01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is now a new picture of the female genitals (in the form of a painting). I can't get this comment edit thing right :)

VANDALISM- CODE RED
Go to Wikipedia's article and you will see VERY inappropiate pictures! PLEASE IMMEDIATLEY BAN THE USER Stellaartois AT ONCE! HE'S VERY TRICKY! EVERY TIME WE TRY TO FIX IT, HE PUTS UP ANOTHER PHOTO! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.3.19 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I know, I saw that too. I left a message on someone's user page telling them about it, I myslef couldn't edit it because it was locked.


 * He's been blocked indefinitely. -- Majo <small style="color:#BA0000;">rly  01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

MY SEVEN-YEAR OLD SON SUDDENLY SAW THIS DISTURBING PICTURE! PLEASE REMOVE IT AT ONCE AND FOREVER BLOCK THESE IDIOTIC PHOTOS!

Wikipedia grouth
the Wikipedia grouth chart needs to be updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.104.8 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

More Vandalism?
Is it just me, or is there a penis on the page there? I can't find the template it came from though. Do I need to clear my cache? :/ RHB 10:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

someones got to correct thearticel please it's got DESU written all over it

The vandalism is still here
I'm still seeing 6 images of a penis on this article. Could the main admin please correct the templates (or whatever) and ban the aforementioned user? 193.217.63.184 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's fixed now. 193.217.63.184 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There is A PENIS ON THIS PAGE
It's still on here!  B e  a  rly  541  09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed. I believe that all templates currently transcluded onto this page are protected at this time. Luna Santin 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Error in Stephen Colbert paragraph
The article states Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report has oft times instigated his viewers to vandalize articles in humorous ways, once doing so on the wikipedia article on bears. In fact, the article was about elephants, not bears. 12.76.50.200 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Aunt Peggy
 * If you can verify this claim with a valid source I am sure an editor would correct it right away.<font face="comic sans ms"> ¤~Persian Poet Gal  <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed tag in reference
Ref #4, "Note that it is the United States copyright law that applies to all of Wikipedia's content." has a tag in it. It looks like someone's trying to make a footnote of some sort and it's a little confusing. --WikiSlasher 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A Recent Study
heres somthing i found in the paper this morning that might be of intrest to this article, its about a study of about the amount of stress people feel when they used the web, commissioned by a company called rackspace and caried out by "experts" from the social issues research centre in oxford. all well and good. the thing is, they released a list of websites that were the most stress free to use and wikipedia came top acording to the research, and i was wondering if that stat could have a place in this article?--JWJW&#124;Have a nice day :) 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume they meant "stress-free to get information from" rather than "stress-free to edit". Sockatume 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Gooood articles
So far wikipedia has done a good job with all of its articles. Everyone knows wikipedia is most likely going to be the most informational encyclopedia if it already isn't! The only thing that wikipedia can change is that they should make it so that you have an account to edit stuff.

Ghetto USB 19:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Ghetto USB

Characteristics section
The first paragraph of this section reads as follows (boldfacing added):
 * ''Wikipedia uses a type of software called a "wiki", which allows for content to be authored by multiple people easily. Visitors are allowed to add, remove, or otherwise edit and change its content to help build the encyclopedia. Such contributions can be made without the need to register a user account. It is therefore possible for large numbers of people to create articles and update them quickly as new information becomes available; it also means online vandalism of and disagreement about content are common.

The boldfaced section suggests to me that unregistered users can create articles. But they can't, can they? Does anyone else read this passage the way I do? ForDorothy 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Two ideas: 1) cut the "Such contributions" sentence entirely; 2) introduce the idea of registered and unregistered users in the lead, in relation to either the idea of "volunteers" or the idea of "susceptibility to vandalism." ForDorothy 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wrote that initially. I don't remember using "create articles", but it's linked to a WP page (BAD!) so I guess that someone changed it. I altered it to say that non-registered users can help write articles and added a footnote that explains a registration will grant the user a few extra privilidges. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 07:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Links of interest
To the best of my knowledge, I was first described as co-founder of Wikipedia back in September 2001 by The New York Times. That was also my description in Wikipedia's own press releases from 2002 until 2004. With my increasing distance from the project, and as it grew in the public eye, however, some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny my crucial, formative involvement. In fact, in the early years of the project, my role was not in dispute at all.

The following links have come to light, and they should dispel much of the confusion:

http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html

--Larry Sanger 22:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's off topic, but I just realised you could read that web address as "Larry's anger". (I'm not implying anything by that) :) --WikiSlasher 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I think that all of these sources that Mr. Sanger mentions should be cited somewhere on Wikipedia, along with other sources, and wherever the two are mentioned as founders there should be a link or at least a footnote containing a link to that. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Trend: Protection of pages
There seems to be a recent trend in Q4 2K6 towards protecting a fairly large proportion of article pages on the English Wikipedia, and semi-protecting even more. Every day, it seems, I run across at least one new example in the course of some research or other, not counting the Pic of the Day or other things included into the main page that change daily.

Does this result from an increasing level of vandalism, perhaps more specifically an increase in the ratio of vandals to responsible editors making the latter resort to increasingly blunt instruments to combat the former? (The previous trend was an increase in the policing of articles by bots, which fits the hypothesis.) There also seems to be an increasing tendency to discriminate between registered and unregistered users, from image editing (registered only) to new article creation (ditto) and the increase of semi-protection. I'm not sure this makes much sense as a policy; registered or not, ultimately all that's known about a user that's useful for separating wheat from chaff is their IP address and past edit history. Registering under a new name is easy and whitewashes your edit history, unless the edit history for the IP is considered anyway. Registration is, in short, useless for any kind of "security" purpose, and mainly useful to let people more easily edit pseudonymously rather than anonymously (as signing automatically includes a pseudonym you'd otherwise have to manually enter) and to let a person who chooses to maintain a single identity and edit history even if they have a dynamic IP address.

Of course, the article on Wikipedia makes no mention of these kinds of changes, either de jure or just de facto, in the sitewide emergent editorial policy, and there doesn't seem to be any one-stop-shop for the latest news or scuttlebutt regarding policy evolution either. (A link to it seems to belong in this article, once it exists of course. It will have to be created by someone other than me, because I hate registering at websites and the attendant incremental privacy risks, identity/password-management load, and other incremental stresses attendant thereupon.)--74.104.131.76 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * IP addresses are worthless for identifying people because of proxies and dynamic IPs. I hope, but doubt, IPv6 fixes this by giving everyone static IPs. 75.153.221.227 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Account names that are as easy to obtain as Wikipedia's are even more worthless for identifying people. I also don't hope IPv6 "fixes" anything but the shortage of address space -- online anonymity via proxies and similar provides a crucial free-speech safety-valve. Some kinds of laws should never be perfectly enforceable, and the ones that limit speech, including tort law and copyright, are prime examples.--74.104.131.76 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a trivial task to find out what a person's country and ISP is from their IP address so you have more privacy if you do sign in. Anyone can just make an account with four random letters and a password. You might want to take a look at the Village Pump that has the sort of news/policy proposals sometimes. As a side note, is there a way to count the number of protected and semi-protected pages really quickly? I myself like being anonymous. In an ideal world people would be allowed to contribute and create accounts using open proxies but of course it's too hard to stop mass vandal attacks this way. Pesky vandals... --WikiSlasher 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The real fix may be to limit edit frequency and interpret new edits in a "smart" way. For example, almost any edit that drastically shrinks an article is illegitimate. If someone submits an edit within 1 second of a previous edit to the same section of an article, the server could sit on the submission until the 1 second was up and then process it. Normal users would simply occasionally see the page take a bit longer than usual to load. Bots would be throttled to one edit per second, and their editing would disrupt human editing (slow loads and an inevitable "edit conflict" result) making any massed bot attack easily detectable. Editing timeouts and rejecting certain edits (like suspected blankings) would not apply to "trusted" users (accounts or IPs with a long edit history and few complaints). Timeouts could even be applied intelligently: each article probably has an average frequency of edits, which could be tracked and estimated as edits occur. An edit where the last several edits in a row would bump up the frequency enormously may represent a bot attack. (Or someone reading an article and separately fixing spelling errors as they go, though.) Ultimately, it's only new users (unfamiliar IPs with no edit history and new accounts) and known vandals whose edits need to be treated with suspicion though.--74.104.131.76 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about requiring registration, but not asking for any personal info at all -- not even an email address? Still causes one more login/password pair to remember though. But you could then require new users download something that crunches some sort of math problem and return the correct answer. If it's a slow enough calculation, this limits the rate at which anyone can create new accounts based on their computer speed. It makes losing an account to a block more painful too. That would knock out pretty much every sort of mass-vandal attack except genuine grassroots and botnets, and reduce the damage botnets could do. The math problem could even be useful, like a protein folding job or whatever, like the DC projects use, with credit for any useful results to the account creator. Of course, there has to be a quick test for the slow calculation, which suggests using NP-complete math problems. I think some of those can be useful, e.g. crypotography research...


 * Keep it simple, stupid. (I'm not calling anyone stupid) While it sounds nice to calculate protein folds while creating accounts I think it will just make things overly complicated and slow. Supplying an email address is optional when registering and the most important thing of all is to keep editing Wikipedia free and easy, hence our motto. We'd lose out on a lot of good contributions if we required account registration. I just don't think we want people to click Create Account and then see "please wait while your computer calculates the result of our complex mathematical problem..." (be even worse for those with slower processors). --WikiSlasher 03:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Created by: Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger
Being as this has been a source of controversey of late and this article is likely to be viewed by many as an authoritative source, I think it is slightly irresponsible to state this information without at least providing a footnote to where a more in depth discussion of the founding and the roles of these two individuals can be found. From what little I've gleaned of this on talk pages and in articles where this information is cited to some degree it seems they both agree that Jimbo was a creator and Larry calls himself a co-creator but Jimbo doesn't agree with that. I'm not even necessarily suggesting that this should be changed to just Jimbo, but I think that there should be a footnote/reference/something. The infobox is too prominent a place to contain this information in such a naked way. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Being as this has been a source of controversey of late and this article is likely to be viewed by many as an authoritative source, I think it is slightly irresponsible to state this information without at least providing a footnote to where a more in depth discussion of the founding and the roles of these two individuals can be found." There currently is such a "footnote". It's the link at the top of the article labeled "discussion". :)--74.104.131.76 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For an outside like me, It seems Larry Sanger has played a very important role in the creation of Wikipedia, its name, how it should work etc. Eventhough he did'nt imagine that it would be a big success. He can be well an employee of Jimbo Wales at that time, but many ideas of Wikipedia came from his mind. This is just like a scientist working under Government funds discovers a new invention. The fact that his research is funded by Government do not mean he is not credited with the invention. So I think it is appropriate to call Larry as co-founder of Wikipedia. --59.93.12.154 06:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding Pictures
How do I add pictures, photos, and things like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.180.238 (talk • contribs)
 * Go to the following help page: Help:Contents/Images and media. ArthurWeasley 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

umm...
There is nothing in here that says "THIS IS WIKIPEDIA" or anything like that :O 24.107.103.220 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" right under the title :) Anyway might want to have a look at WP:ASR. --WikiSlasher 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing. Instead of beginning; "Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based free-content encyclopedia project. " Maybe it could begin; "Wikipedia, the resource upon which this article is founded; is a multilingual, Web-based free-content encyclopedia project." Nagelfar 04:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would also be pushing Avoid self-references.  Harryboyles  04:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It should not mention that in any case. For starters, this isn't just Wikipedia's encyclopedia. It's the free encyclopedia that anyone may use. Many other sites do, so it's not a good idea to link it to this site so explicitly. Secondly, we have rules against this kind of thins (WP:SELF). Thirdly, a self-reference is bad writing style. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 14:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even so, saying that the the 'article is founded' via wikipedia is not saying it is being "read" from, or off of, wikipedia. It just lets people know the source. Not necessarily self-reference, just reference of a fact that happens to correlate with the self in context. While not necessarily doing so outside of such context. Nagelfar 04:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias
In the bias section

"For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[55]"

has been added, personally it seems abit bias in it self, as the sourced used is a religous one. Also the example programme given from CNN is not well known outside of the U.S.A, does any one know of a more internationally known example? Thought I'd flag it up here to see what people think.Struds 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more; an interesting case of self-reference on the part of whoever was responsible. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CREATING NEW PAGES
Excuse me, but how do you create new pages? I am a new user. Thank you. - unsigned


 * Type the name of the page you wish to create in the Search box; click Go; Follow instructions. The name must not be the name of an existing page. WAS 4.250 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This might be useful as well : Help:Starting a new page. Happy editing! ArthurWeasley 21:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

REDIRECTING NEW PAGES
Excuse me, but how do you redirect pages? (For example, if you type in asoue, you go to a series of unfortunate events). I am a new user. Thank you.
 * Please note that this page is for discussing changes to the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia itself. It's not a meeting place for people to ask questions. That said, redirecting pages is easy. Just make a whole new page and have the contents be:


 * 1) REDIRECT article to where this should lead
 * Please see How_to_edit_a_page for more information. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 15:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Help:Redirect has much more information about this topic. If you have any more questions, the best place to ask them would be at the Help desk, seeing as that is what it is for, whereas this page is meant for discussing changes and improvements to the Wikipedia article.  Harryboyles  15:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviation?
What is the common proper abbreviation for "Wikipedia", for use on internal talk pages? It would be good if this article mentioned that in passing, right at the start. 69.87.202.73 14:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * People sometimes use "WP"; that, however, shouldn't be part of the article I think. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The abbreviation is something that only editors use. I've never seen it used outside of Wikipedia. That means it shouldn't be included. <tt> function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void </tt> 18:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

12/25
MERRY CHRISTMAS, WIKIPEDIA AND AHAPPY ANOTHER YEAR!!! sorry, I couldn't help it --Chikinpotato11 12:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia in other formats
I wonder whether some of the content on "Wikipedia in other formats" should be broken off to another main article / list? Edratzer 01:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor growth graph - Innacurate forEnglish Language Growth
The image we're using: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_growth.png

Is innacurate due to the recent lack of stats for English language growth, i believe due to stats not being recorded anymore, giving the impression that growth has stopped on English language Wikipedia which is obviously not the case). What can we do about this? Benbread 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We need to get in touch with whoever maintains that graph. In the meantime, we can use an old one; it does the job just fine, even if it's not entirely up-to-date. <tt> function MSikma( const U, T : Float ) : Float { Visit my page } ;</tt> 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a newer version which is more accurate here: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngArticlesTotal.htm --Galadh 20:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is stupid..
Why have a wikipedia page on wikipedia? It is a poitless page and is taking up space. I dont have the authority to delete it.--SerpentsTail 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SerpentsTail (talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I don't understand. Wikipedia tries to have an article on everything tht's significant.  Wikipedia is significant.  Ergo...
 * As for deleting it &mdash; anyone can propose it for deletion &mdash; but don't expect to get very far. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is a history of wikipedia that someone might not be able to find elsewhere, plus, its a well writen article and its long and not a stub, deleting this article would be pointless Thedarksage 22:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SerpentsTail, what are you talking about? Articles on Internet topics are allowed if they pass notability guidelines, like an Alexa ranking. Wikipedia is #16 on the list, and that definitely qualifies it for an article. Why do we have an article on Google? An article on Encyclopedia Brittanica? An article on Yahoo! News?  Nish kid 64  23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IT IS!
The evdince on this page is amazing 2 prove him gulity! Fattdoggy 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question on Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia
I'm not being stupit about this, what's the difference between Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia that we see online and the encyclopedias that we see in the librarys across the United States. I would have to say for my guess that Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia is the #1 best. You will have to thank me on that one. I love Wikipedia! ---Ohioian 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC}


 * It's Free as in Freedom. Wikipedia is GDFL'd, library encyclopaedia are Copyright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuart Morrow (talk • contribs) 12:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

the chinese controversy
someone should add this.

main article: Chinese Wikipedia Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China

I am not sure if those two are the same article, the titles are different. it is the same person who wrote for those two newspapers. On the other hand, the words seem to be different. I am not a paid member of nyt, so I don't know what is in the NY times article, the quoted text was the only thing that I read.

According to International Herald Tribune Asia-Pacific:"on sensitive questions of China's modern history or on hot-button issues, the Chinese version diverges so dramatically from its English counterpart that it sometimes reads as if it were approved by the censors themselves." Chinese-language Wikipedia presents different view of history

On December 1, 2006, The New York Times published another report by Howard W. French, titled as "Wikipedia lays bare two versions of China's past."

"Some say the object should be to spread reliable information as widely as possible, and that, in any case, self-censorship is pointless because the government still frequently blocks access to Wikipedia for most Chinese Internet users. 'There is a lot of confusion about whether they should obey the neutral point of view or offer some compromises to the government,' said Isaac Mao, a well-known Chinese blogger and user of the encyclopedia. 'To the local Wikipedians, the first objective is to make it well known among Chinese, to get people to understand the principles of Wikipedia step by step, and not to get the thing blocked by the government."

And "the articles are already pre-censored by party-leaning moderators and users." --SummerThunder 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an ongoing edit dispute. See Talk:Chinese Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NEW QUESTION
Including only text files and pictures, among english version entries only, what would be the memory (roughly) required to download the entire Wikipedia site (again, only in English and with text and pictures only)? In other words, how much memory does it take for Wikipedia to store all the english files?

Thanks, -Kitra101
 * You can find out here. Last time I checked, the database dump of all text plus revisions was 16 GB. I'm not sure about the images. <tt> function msikma( const U, T : Float ) : Float { to my page. } ;</tt> 10:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC) PS: this talk page is not for general questions about Wikipedia, it's for discussing changes to this article.

Proposed rewrite

 * 1) REDIRECT Main_Page ;) Stuart Morrow 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)