Talk:Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
Reverted 1 edit by Freedomofspeech20 (talk); Maybe the US constitution. But theis is the English Wikipedia, not the US only. (TW) |
|||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
{{archives|search=yes}} |
{{archives|search=yes}} |
||
[[Category:Talk pages cleaned up by the Talk Page Cleanup Crew]] |
[[Category:Talk pages cleaned up by the Talk Page Cleanup Crew]] |
||
== Countries == |
|||
:''Moved to [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Countries]]'' |
|||
== Truth by consensus == |
== Truth by consensus == |
Revision as of 23:48, 19 March 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Template:Wikipedia talk notice
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Wikipedia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 15, 2005. |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2010. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
Wikipedia Reference Desk was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Wikipedia. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The contents of the Wikipedia community page were merged into Wikipedia. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
To-do list for Wikipedia:
|
Index
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Truth by consensus
Can someone create a section on "truth by consensus"? Wikipedia is "truth by consensus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.142.145 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- What do you think such a section should contain? HiLo48 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- This diff [2] might help answer your question. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't truth by consensus, it's truth by consensus of what the notable sources are.Rememberway (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- This opinion (that Wikipedia is truth by consensus) is already covered in two places: Community of Wikipedia#Consensus and the "hive mind" and Wikipedia in culture#Wikiality There isn't room for all Wikipedia-related issues to be discussed in the Wikipedia article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Self-Promotion
Boy if this article isn't self-promoting I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophily (talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Boy if that comment isn't pointless, I don't know what is. Exactly what problems do you see? What WOULD you like to see? Do try to be a little more constructive please. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SELF --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:WAWI. WP:SELF is concerned with writing style. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, the Wikipedia article meets all of the content guidelines so there is no reason that there should not be an article. It has also been mentioned in the past that other enclolypedias have articles about Wikipedia and themselves so there is no reason that it should be any different here.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:WAWI. WP:SELF is concerned with writing style. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SELF --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Better illustration
Considering how much images help summarize sections and engage our more visual audience, I think a decent illustration is better than nothing. Now in the reliability section I have found a large crowd on computers, with possibly some literal Wikipedians- an even better illustration than was ever really mandatory I think. -Tesseract2(talk) 15:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedia as Imago Mundi"
That is the title of a really interesting article by Alex Mueller, published in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Teaching 17.2 (2010): 11-25. Besides discussing some aspects of the use of Wikipedia in the classroom (though he discusses only students' use--as if professors don't use it to prepare lectures!), Mueller argues that the basics of the Wikipedia project are not so different from medieval encyclopedia building, in which often consecutive versions of encyclopedias were improved, edited, changed, etc. Like Wikipedia (and he cites this edit), "the medieval encyclopedia was a product of collaboration, whose authority rested in the hands of the most recent community of users" (14). He compares the Wiki model to a palimpsest, for instance, and his thesis is worth citing: "I want to argue that a conception of Wikipedia as a postmodern manifestation of the premodern encyclopedia will help scholars and teachers to maximize the usefulness of this provocative resource" (11).
Anyway, to the point: I can't rightly find where to add this to the present article, which has no section that I can see that discusses the philosophical and epistemological qualities and characteristics of our project. Any ideas? Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sister projects
This article currently identifies the following as "sister projects" of Wikipedia:
It also refers to "other projects" run by Wikimedia, and names only one:
Why is this "other project" not considered a "sister project"? Is Wikisource a "sister project" or an "other project" or something else? Should it also be mentioned in that paragraph? Is there a complete list of "sister projects" and "other projects" run by Wikimedia? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Facts
What about many school teachers hating this site for being notoriously inaccurate?--ILuvTomservo3Alt (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is THAT a fact? HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- ILuvTomservo3Alt, do you have any reliable sources describing high school teachers' opinions of Wikipedia? If so, I can look at putting something about this into the Reliability of Wikipedia article. That is the article which contains the details of Wikipedia's accuracy or lack thereof. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
wikipedia has deleted my friends article which explains how wikipedia is against freedom of the press which is a natural human right as stated in the constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomofspeech20 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Accusation of Koch Brothers Manipulation
There is an article by Thom Hartman alleging that the Koch brothers have hired a PR firm to rework many Wikipedia entries to not only be more favorable to their client but to also remove favorable information about any liberal group. http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/are-koch-brothers-rewriting-wikipedia75.71.40.251 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, that's not what the article says. In particular, it doesn't mention "liberal groups". As someone from Australia, where the word "liberal" has two distinct meanings, both very different to that used in America, I am very sensitive to use of that word. I know nothing of the Koch brothers, but surely we can use good sources to keep the article "clean". Use the sources, but do it better than that post above. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just a forum post, so I'm not sure what use it is to post here. Perhaps WP:AN would be the best place to bring this up. Rehevkor ✉ 13:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- GA-Class Wikipedia articles
- Top-importance Wikipedia articles
- WikiProject Wikipedia articles
- GA-Class Websites articles
- Top-importance Websites articles
- GA-Class Websites articles of Top-importance
- GA-Class Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- GA-Class Internet culture articles
- High-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Wikipedia good articles
- Engineering and technology good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Selected anniversaries (January 2005)
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Talk pages cleaned up by the Talk Page Cleanup Crew