Talk:Wikipedia community/Archive 2

Narcissus?
My comment is by way of a general sense of this article which I am left feeling does not really consider users to be members of the "community". The inference seems to me to be that they are considered to be spectators, onlookers into the wiki "project". But is wiki a project for its editors or a resource for its readers?

There seems to me to be a highly vocal group who believe that wiki exists as a project for their editing aspirations. I imagine though that in terms of the number of hits and time spent viewing its pages its use is overwhelmingly from those who see wiki as an information resource (and one in a great part of extremely high quality). Users give wiki legitimacy by reading it and the former are validated by creating it. These are two halves of the same coin yet it seems to me that discussions, in this article and in general, focus more on the rights and aspirations of editors than on those of users. This is what I mean by the label Narcissus. It is the cult of the writer.

Users are in the main are silent, but edits, redirects, and all those matters that the "community" considers and manages, should also in my view consider their needs in terms of an information and education resource that they increasingly rely upon.

If someone came to your house uninvited and removed or rearranged what was there, your pleasure or displeasure in this would directly relate to the respect they showed to your use of those things and the authority the claimed and enforced in doing so. Similarly, the benefits that administrators bring to wiki and the need for wiki's political organisation to focus on users should at least be balanced in the article, and I believe in general, against the perceived disbenefits of control to the free-reign of editors. LookingGlass (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title
--Chealer (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Any reason why not to have this at Wikipedia community? It seems to have been at that title for a long time before taking the current name as part of a history merge; I'm tempted to think that the admin accidentally didn't move it back to the pre-merge title. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't an accident. The admin did not want to use the title "Wikipedia community".  You can see the discussion here.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Neckbeards
Can someone please redirect the search 'neckbeard' to this page? That is all.213.243.180.205 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Article quality
Hi. As I skimmed this article today (at this revision), I was unimpressed with the quality of this article. Certain sections are fine, but others are unreferenced or simply wrong. I did a bit of cleanup, but this article needs some serious work, if anyone has time or inclination. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup and lead
An enormous amaount of content (about 75%) was removed from this article in July and August. The result is that the lead as it now stands bears no relation to the article that follows. It was not particularly well written anyway, being little more than a collection of quotes on random aspects of WP by writers who might or might not be notable—as well as being seven to ten years out of date. I am therefore removing all but the first sentence. The last sentence can be moved down to the following section. If somebody could write a lead that "defines the topic, establishes context, explains why the topic is notable, and summarizes the most important points" (per WP:LEAD) that would be worthwhile. Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Post-script: I have discovered that everything I removed is already at Criticism of Wikipedia, so it has not been lost. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Community of Wikipedia → Wikipedia community – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Community of Wikipedia" is not in common use. There was a HistMerge discussion in February 2011, which ended with the merge being done to Community of Wikipedia "since that is a better title", but without any discussion of that title. Scolaire (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. The current title sounds like a Romance language calque.  (Incidentally, es:Comunidad de Wikipedia.)  —  AjaxSmack   14:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support More natural sounding and in more common use. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. More natural usage in colloquial English. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's all natural. Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 00:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedian ?
Are they any sources for the word "Wikipedian" for a user of Wikipedia? I don't think I've ever seen any that weren't from Wikipedia site... Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The word "Wikipedian" may not be in widespread use in secondary, reliable sources, but there are such sources that use the word. Here is one example:  http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-24/lifestyle/35268862_1_virginia-earthquake-magnitude-earthquake-wikipedia  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Pay
Hi, just a question out of curiosity, do you people who constantly revert my inexplicable additions to your website get paid? Genuine question. Thanks 58.165.35.114 (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It's all volunteer. Liz  Read! Talk! 00:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrator abuse
I deleted a bit about administrator abuse which was sourced to a paper:
 * Bongwon Suh, Gregorio Convertino, Ed H. Chi, Peter Pirolli (2009), "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia". Proc. WikiSym’09.

This bit was slotted into a paragraph about the enjoyment of the editing experience, but nothing about this bit talked about enjoyment or the lack thereof. It was a clunky attempt to insert something negative and it violated WP:SYNTH. I don't think it should be used in this paragraph, if at all. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the paper is primarily about the slowing growth of Wikipedia. It is not about administrator abuse. The source should not be misrepresented. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Community
Wikimedian redirects to this article. As has Wikimedia community for the last year.

In view of these facts, and to improve this article, I recently added a paragraph to its lede, saying:

"The term Wikimedia community embraces Wikipedians and other Wikimedians: contributors to other Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata and Wikisource."

This has twice been removed by User:Staszek Lem. the first time, his edit summary was:

"Rv original research. Besides, this article about "wikipedia community" not about world peace"

The latter clause is simply bizarre, but I thought the former was invalid, so challenged it, by reverting with an edit summary of:

"Not "OR"; raise on talk if you think you can show why it is."

He has chosen not to substantiate his claim, but instead to remove the paragraph again, saying:

"please don't reinsert unreferenced text. Also wikimedia is not wikipedia. You are welcome to insert this text into wikimedia article"

Regarding citations, WP:BLUE applies, but if he wishes to push that point, without attempting to add a citation himself, he could have added a CN tag, and I or another editor could have cited one of the 65,000+ hits Google finds for the quoted term "Wikimedia community".

The statement "wikimedia is not wikipedia" is a straw man, since - clearly - no such claim was made; indeed, the contrary was indicated, for their respective communities.

Note that Wikimedia is not an article, but a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. I see that Staszek Lem has subsequently changed the redirect of Wikimedia community, inappropriately, to point to Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation is not analogous to the Wikimedia community.

The paragraph in question, which helps our readers by clarifying the distinction between the two overlapping communities, should be restored (as should the redirect) and, if necessary, improved. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Show me the references and you are welcome to write about "overlapping communities", even a separate article if you can. I find it ridiculous to demand that I add "cn" now. If you have a reference which substantially defines the term, why so much fuss? How you can start "clarifying the distinction", if we even don't even know that there is such thing as "wikimedia community". Staszek Lem (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

re:Wikimedia is not an article - so what? it redirects somewhere. As for my changing redirect, please learn about various uses of redirects. In our case, my redirect is closer to the correct meaning than previous. Once again, you are welcome to insert your text into wikimedia article (or wherever it redirects) and let its watchers discuss your text. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Video file of Jimmy Wales Speaks at Closing Ceremony of Wikimania 2014
I was able to contact the YouTube user of this file File:Jimmy Wales Speaks at Closing Ceremony of Wikimania 2014.webm and successfully got him to modify his license to a suitable free-use license so we can now have that file on Wikimedia Commons. :)

Might be a useful addition to this article.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Closed or controlled editing?
Could someone please tell me why it is not possible to edit some articles? Some sort of "controlled edit"? I am not being hostile; but it's the first time I have ever encountered this situation on Wikipedia. Is it a good idea to have all content funneled through some arbitrary gatekeeper? Probably not the best place to inquire, but I am baffled. Thanks. Lynxx2 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on what, how, and why. I can't tell you more without knowing which article you're unable to edit. Rebb  ing  23:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Please can someone help me to create a page on Wikipedia about a product? Eddsfriend (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for the article about the Wikipedia community. I've left a message on your user talk page explaining how to create articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I want to know about localizing of WikiLove images. Like in WikiLove we can see kitten image and in sa.wiki, we want to use holy cow image. Similarly in place of bear we want to put other drink. I want to change each and every images of WikiLove, but I don't know how and where should I do it. Please help to localize images. Thank you.

I also wish to create a wiki page about an annual event that happens on Rutgers which is more of a tradition but is one that happens through the Rutgers Choirs. I have personally participated in the event for 2 years and I have enough information I can find through sources like the organizers of the event to make an accurate wikipedia page about it. I wish to do this because I want to make sure there is an accurate understanding of certain cultures that different student organizations go through without needing to be a Rutgers staff or student. If a parent, for example, wishes to understand the history of this event, wikipedia would normally be the first place they go. The lack of this information on this free encyclopedia service is a disservice to those who need it. 15extinction15E (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Localization of WikiLove in Sa.wiki
Hello, I want to know about localizing of WikiLove images. Like in WikiLove we can see kitten image and in sa.wiki, we want to use holy cow image. Similarly in place of bear we want to put other drink. I want to change each and every images of WikiLove, but I don't know how and where should I do it. Please help to localize images. Thank you. NehalDaveND (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

---criticism--- what's missing from the "criticism" section is the really obvious liberal bias in wikipedia Johninlongmont (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)JohnInLongmont

Cross-namespace links in the article body
The hats and see also is probably fine, but using cross-namespace links in the article body may send the reader to a project page (e.g. to Barnstars) where they are expecting encyclopedic content (WP:SURPRISE). –xenotalk 12:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)