Wikipedia talk:Editor

Untitled comment
This page is here as an alternative to having main namespace (aka "mainspace") articles point to User:. We can point to User: from the "talk" page. -- Fplay 22:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Who are some notable Wikipedians other than Jimmy Wales? I would like to know! 24.43.51.199 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. There is a catagory for "Notable wikipedians", but that is pretty much all inclusive. --ThrashedParanoid 03:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Editor turneover
Over just a bit more than 10 years there were 15 million+ editors. That is an amazing number; but only about 1 in 20 has been active in the last year (a guess from the figure of 140,000 in the past 30 days (many have been active over the whole of last year, so it's not just a matter of 140.000 x 12)). Did anybody speculate why there are so many drop-outs? Any hints? Sleuth21 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Of these 15 million I think there is a high portion of vandalism accounts. Once they discover that they cannot vandalise even with an account they move on. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alan. This will go some way to explain the figures but there must be also quite a few disppointed beginners (eager to add their knowledge / expertise) who found WP too difficult, in spite of the help offered - some of it may just be too technical, too quickly? Sleuth21 (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd, off-beat comment seems out-of-place
Believe it or not, users refer to themselves as Wikipedians. I'm not sure how to react. If it's a joke/vandalism then this post is an over-reaction, but if this is "the way it is supposed to be", then I have a problem with it. I do not find it particularly noteworthy or unusual that some wikipedia editors call themselves "wikipedians", so the conversationally introductory passage "believe it or not" is inappropriate no matter what words are used. Internet language is pliable and no one should be surprised a new term has been created. Plus, it's old-news. It might have been noteworthy 10 years ago.

In a larger sense, I would think the highest wiki standards would be exemplified in those articles that most-specifically relate to wikipedia. Maybe this is something that has already been done, but if not, putting some effort into identifying all wiki articles that refer to itself in some way and putting extra attention into them in order to exemplify what kind of "feel" wiki is trying for would go a long way towards helping novice editors have some sense of what the standards are, what is expected, etc...

This article is the opposite of that. If "feels like" it was thrown together and forgotten about, yet in terms of wiki's overall goals, having a clear and comprehensive definition of what a wiki editor is, and what a really well-written wiki article looks like ought to be high on the list of "things to do". I can certainly think of a lot of articles that are less important that have recieved a lot more attention.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Researching this myself I first typed WP:Editors which redirects to Who writes Wikipedia. Somebody should merge these into one article that makes sense and also explains the difference between editor and "Anonymous IP," Administrators and a Bureaucrats. Started teaching workshops and people DO get confused!! CarolMooreDC 04:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, there is a need for a basic set of explanations. I had a go at tidying up the Help pages a while back and I think I crteated this one as part of it. I want to see the Help and Wikipedia namespace articles sorted out to better help readers and editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never heard the term "Wikipedians". It sounds stupid. 108.207.98.142 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of people have not heard about a lot of things! As for sounding stupid, that is a matter of opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)