Talk:Wikipedia

well it's a very nice page ya got here

Wikipedia

Couldn't we just put the site your on and save the work. :)Varlinx (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FA

Why isn't the "Wikipedia" Wikipedia article a featured article? Shark96z (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was at one point but was found to no longer meet the criteria. Simply said to be a feature article the critiera must be meet even for this article.--76.65.142.119 (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot! Shark96z (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales and administrators scrubbing information

I think this should be covered by this article about Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales and administrators were actively removing factual information about the kidnapping of David Rohde from Wikipedia. Of course, this article is locked so the info can't be added.

A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia’s page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping. ...

The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times. ... Knowing that his own actions on Wikipedia draw attention, Mr. Wales turned to an administrator, one of several who would eventually become involved in monitoring and controlling the page. ...

"The idea of a pure openness, a pure democracy, is a naïve one."[2]

--JHP (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's covered here, but it's not just about David Rohde. It's about Wikipedia itself. It should be mentioned in this article. --JHP (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have copied the Wikipedia portion of the David Rohde kidnapping stuff to this article. --JHP (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The NPOV dispute in question is located here. --JHP (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Small HTML tag in images

Say, why is there a < small > tag in the image descriptions? There's no need for that, is there? It's inconsistent, the Wikipedia article surely should be in line with its own manual of style? 195.241.69.171 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words and weasel logic in "stable versions" discussion

"some editors have called for "stable versions" of articles, or articles that have been reviewed by the community and locked from further editing—but the community has been unable to form a consensus in favor of such changes, partly because they would require a major software overhaul. A similar system is being tested on the German Wikipedia, and there is an expectation that some form of that system will make its way onto the English version at some future time."

Let me get this straight, someone or some people have "an expectation" that English language wikipedia articles will be "locked from further editing" despite the lack of "consensus in favor of such changes". First off, "there is an expectation" does not make clear who has this expectation. It gives the reader no idea of the likelihood that the expectation will be borne out. Second, how could any bona fide wikipedian support such locking, when wikipedia has thrived on the unlocking of collective knowledge? Longshot.222 (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of your concerns would be better handled at one of the discussion threads that can be reached through WP:Flagged revisions. But I agree that the current language uses weasel words, and it's not quite up to date. Will others please take a look at this proposed rewording of the passage about flagged revisions:

One way to improve reliability might be a system of "stable versions" of articles. This would allow the reader to specify an option to always see versions of articles that have been reviewed. The community has not yet reached a consensus to implement this proposal, which is known internally as 'flagged revisions.' A similar system is being tested on the German Wikipedia. Software already exists that would allow flagged revisions to be implemented on the English Wikipedia, if it is found to be desirable.

Let me know your reactions. Further wordsmithing might help. Flagged revisions are not held back any more by the lack of software, since it appears to be ready. I don't think we need to give the precise status of the current proposal; just say that it exists. The comment in the existing text about 'locking' is not quite right, and we don't have space to talk about the new reviewer roles here. I have endeavored to be neutral as to the value of flagged revisions. Correct me on any technical points if needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is much better. Thanks, Ed. Longshot.222 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hudong is Bigger?

At the end of the first paragraph this article states Wikipedia is the 2nd largest general reference web site after Hudong. But Hudong has 2.9 million articles vs. Wikipedia's 13 million, so is this statement correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.113.38 (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have 13 million articles, it has just under 3 million (2,960,305 to be precise). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This depends on how you look at it. Wikipedia's multiple language editions have ~13 million articles together, while the English Wikipedia alone has ~3 million articles. Besides, the statement's already been removed from the article. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Personality Paper on Wikipedians Contradicts Itself

I'm referring to the study cited in the statement "A 2008 study found that Wikipedia users were less agreeable and open, though more conscientious, than non-Wikipedia users.[91][92]" If you look at the [3] written about the study, and at the table that shows the mean and SD, Wikipedians scored higher on openness than non-Wikipedians. The data also shows that Wikipedians of both genders scored higher on openness. While Wikipedian males scored lower on conscientiousness than non-Wikipedian males, Wikipedian females scored HIGHER than non-Wikipedian females. So, the paper's abstract doesn't match its own data, the New Scientist article replicates the mistake, and it's been carried here, too. I'm wondering if perhaps the paper is sloppy enough it shouldn't be referred to at all. 76.115.3.200 (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed by Richard Stallman?

I don't get it. Was Nupedia around when RMS announced there should be a free enclopedia or whole thing started with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.189.22.84 (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)