Wikipedia talk:What it is

It was relatively annoying work to cut out even just the obvious dross from the machine-generated list produced by Wikipedia:what links here.

Probably this list is really 'what wikipedia thinks wikipedia is'. There should probably also be a separate list of concepts that wikipedia is actually an example of, and has been described as an example of in relatively stable articles.

Interestingly, almost none of the positive or desirable concepts that are listed in mention of wiki in articles use wikipedia itself as an example!

But few of the bad ones, e.g. cluster fuck, flame war do so either. Maybe wikipedia just doesn't say enough about wikipedia yet, or it's political or something (what isn't?)

I like a tongue in cheek style for this article as it invites newbies to add comemnts and seems less intimidating than no comment (almost useless) or an attempt at serious comment, when in fact no one is going to read all these files to discover how or why they reference wikipedia with a link... flippancy sort of warns the reader that this list isn't very well edited, and probably can't be, as each new article that mentions wikipedia will require edits to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.104.91 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 5 February 2003 (UTC)

Add missing links here if you want to discuss, or directly in the article. Anything that says anything possibly relevant to wikipedia as a whole that also has a link to wikipedia should be listed:

Asharite - early encyclopedists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.108.203 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 February 2003