Wikipedia talk:Why Wikipedia is so great

guys, the whole 'no bureaucracy' thing is totally wrong. there are administrators now, and editing now has 'deletion' added onto it, and 'IP/domain banning' has now replaced this 'social pressure' bullshit.

evidently the wikipedia in-charge people didnt think this lack of bureaucracy was a 'good' thing about wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turmeric3 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 April 2004.

---

Wow, this hasn't been seen in a while, I think this is a great monument to wikipedias past! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl (talk • contribs) 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Funny, this page strikes me as a gratuitous self-congralulatory one. Not to mention opinionated-who can tell the tell articulateness and intelligence of contributors- to me an entirely subjective judgment.

It behooves me to mention the large amount of pages that are cut and pasted from other free domain sources that are merely refactored at best but rarely updated. I would not count these at all, in the so-called unprecedented growth of pages here. Refactoring is neither an indication of intelligence or articulateness. This reminds me of the days when companies actually gave intelligence tests to potential employees to weed out people too "bright" for a monotonous routine jobs. BTW, this is no longer legal. If this content is moved to a linked talk or opinion page, I will consider that proof of my point, and worse.

---

At present, many wiki articles are of high enough quality to be the basis of a reviewed encyclopedia.

Given enough time, many many more will follow.---- I said:

"If this content is moved to a linked talk or opinion page, I will consider that proof of my point, and worse."

You did exactly what I feared and have surely proved my point to me. And as the ultimate detector of bias and defender of non-bias, I am more than disappointed in your action.. It appears you don't care, enough to either have read my whole statemnt or, if you did consider this remark I just quoted, you did not have the courtesy to explain why my remarks are opinion, while the page I originally added them to is fact. Such is life.

---

Well, basically, you're confused, and many of us no doubt don't want to take the time to try to unconfuse you, particularly because you sound like you're the sort of person, or in a sort of mood, or whatever, such that you would be very hard to unconfuse. Anyway, there is a basic confusion you seem to be laboring under: you think that why Wikipedia is so great is intended to be, and will be understood by most people to be, a statement of fact rather than opinion. This is false. In fact, it is so obviously false that that's probably why no one wanted to take the trouble to point it out to you. In this case, the page isn't in the encyclopedia; it's about the encyclopedia. So why should you expect it to be fact-stating (as encyclopedia articles are) rather than opinion-stating (as they are not)? You fail to understand that the purpose of why Wikipedia is so great is, essentially, PR; like much PR, a lot of it is stated with tongue in cheek and with cheery optimism. And there's nothing wrong with that, and if you think there is, you're wrong.  :-) This also explains why it has the self-congratulatory tone it has, but it also explains why it isn't gratutiously self-congratulatory. It serves its purpose admirably (if I may say so myself).

As to your point,

It behooves me to mention the large amount of pages that are cut and pasted from other free domain sources that are merely refactored at best but rarely updated. I would not count these at all, in the so-called unprecedented growth of pages here.

I find this confusing. Why not include them in the growth of pages? They're part of Wikipedia, aren't they? We aren't embarrassed by those pages. Do you think we should be? We're glad they're there. We wish more people would add such pages.

It seems to me you're taking all this much more seriously than we do. Consequently, your reaction seems strangely out of place. --LMS

---

I think the best way to make complaints would be to make a second opinion metapage, Why Wikipedia is not so great.

---

I want to thank you for taking your valuable time in "unconfusing" me, and alienating me, by making it clear that "we" doesn't include me. It is clear is that I don't fit in with all these brilliant people, and I thank you for clarifying this and puttimg me in my place. Strange how someone thought many of my pages are BrilliantProse. He/she must be confused too. Maybe you can help this person out too.

---

You're welcome. So now, presumably, you understand the intended function of the page you were complaining about. I'm glad. I'm sorry you're alienated; but you alienated me, too. Seriously, perhaps I shouldn't have presumed to speak for anyone else on Wikipedia, but certainly I could speak for the many people who have uploaded public domain content to Wikipedia. Surely they think that material is valuable. Anyway, indeed since I can't really speak for everyone else on Wikipedia, how could I alienate you? (Can't one be alienated only by a group or, metaphorically, by some other huge entity, like The Universe?) In short: lighten up. --LMS---- The expression that got me was: "It seems to me you're taking all this much more seriously than "we" do." We who-the insiders? the important people? Here you are speaking for others as well as yourself, and created a divsion between me and a group of others you are a member of. I think you know who is writing this. I will leave this discussion with "No Further Comment," but with the caveat that silence is not aquiescence.

---

Well, in the future, I'll make an effort to speak only for myself, then. Anyway, who was asking you to acquiesce? Why should anyone care whether you, I, or anyone does or does not acquiesce? This is a wiki!  :-) You can still create that why Wikipedia is not so great page, y'know. --LMS---- Watch my lips!!! "NO FURTHER COMMENT" but with the caveat that silence is not acquiessence. Translation: I will no longer take part in this conversation, but that does not mean I agree with you.. And :

"You can still create that why Wikipedia is not so great page, y'know."

But, Your "we" already did it. Finally, you said:

"This is a wiki!" On the contrary you and others are trying to make what "was" a Wiki into an encylcopedia.

---

A wiki is a community project. The purpose to which the software can be put is wide open. A wiki can be an encyclopedia, eh?

By the way, I never interpret silence as agreement. --LMS

P.S. OK, rarely.  :-)

---

Excised outdated and unnecessary reference to Nupedia: "It also seems rather likely that there will always be a lot of mediocre stuff. But it's possible—how likely we'd be able to tell after more months of experience—that articles would just gradually improve until they were polished to a Nupedia polish. We've already seen many instances of this." --LeFlyman 14:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

---

And there's nothing wrong with that, and if you think there is, you're wrong.
Are you calling someone wrong? I always thought that this Encyclopedia was about representing ALL points of view, rather than just YOURS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CalPaterson (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 July 2005.

Obviously the neutral point-of-view policy doesn't apply here. 68.77.75.166

...ramble on and on

This page says:

On Wikipedia, you can add anything you wish. You can ramble on and on.

That is not entirely true, at least not according to WP:WIN. --Ezeu 07:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot in this essay that is of dubious validity, at least according to the rigid standards of the current Wikipedia.--HisSpaceResearch 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly because it's very out of date - the essay in its original form dates back to 2002, whereas it's now 2007. So much has changed on Wikipedia since then.

Delete this article.

I propose this article be deleted because it is a POV fork with why Wikipedia is not so great. Anyone Second? Gerardo199 17:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's crap. Recurring meta-ness deadending nowhere. Get rid. <unofficial wiki-id: ipaddressonly>. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.143.52 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 April 2006.

I agree that this article should be deleted. It seems as though this information can be adequately integrated into the main parts of the site. This entry detracts from the credibility of the overall project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.106.228.110 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 April 2006 .

Strong keep; the article's subject matter is no more inherently POV than the many articles on religion, popular music, consumer products, or any other idea or object which exists because it satisfies the subjective preferences of some group of adherents/participants/customers/etc. What are the relevant facts? Clearly, Wikipedia exists; it has attracted tens of thousands of active volunteer users; they have freely contributed content of quality sufficient to make Wikipedia one of the most popular and most-linked-to Web sites in the world. Certainly, Wikipedia passes any reasonable test of notability; an article detailing what Wikipedians like about Wikipedia can be as NPOV as an article describing what some music fans like about the Beatles. While a case could be made that the Beatles are "the best popular music act of all time," such a claim would be POV; but an analysis of what Beatles' fans like(d) about the Beatles could be NPOV, and could be accurately written even by someone who dislikes the Beatles. The key is to make clear that we are describing, in an NPOV way, the POV beliefs/attitudes/preferences of a particular group of people, whose objective existence is not in doubt. If someone thinks the article is currently POV, he or she should either edit it to be NPOV, or detail the offending sections here so others can clean them up. Teratornis 13:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Another reason for deletion

I'm not really interested in arguing over whether or not Wikipedia is great- it has its drawbacks and benefits, and they will certainly be debated. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is our mission to document, not to evaluate. This article flies in the face of Wikipedia's purpose because its title contains an inherent subjective assertion that is by very nature not factual. I love Wikipedia, and this article runs fairly parallel to my beliefs, but this is not it's place. The "article" is not encyclopedic, but rather a sort of essay, an argument. The material in this article is generally redundant to the article entitled "wikipedia", which details the controversy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; there are no secondary sources to legitimately confirm its greatness; this article should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antilock (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 April 2006 .

On the contrary, Wikipedia would not exist if not for its ability to motivate Wikipedians to contribute millions of man-hours of skilled labor to it. Many articles on Wikipedia contain significant input from educators, professionals, and experts in their subject areas, and these people normally demand to get paid for sharing their expertise. How great do you have to be to convince trained professionals to help you for free? Obviously, Wikipedia is "great" at attracting and impressing the kinds of people who become the Wikipedians who build Wikipedia. If Wikipedia was not "great" (to them), it would not be here at all. As I pointed out in my comments above, the subject of this article is not inherently POV, but it may require some minor editing to make clear that it objectively describes "why Wikipedia is so great to Wikipedians". In any case, what's wrong with Wikipedia promoting itself a little, in an article with ample disclaimers? There are probably lots of Wikipedia users who agree that Wikipedia is "great," but they are not yet consciously aware of all the things they like about it. A comprehensive listing of what various Wikipedians consider "great" about Wikipedia may help others to take advantage of features which will, to them, seem "great" when they try them, or reflect on them. Teratornis 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Success Factors

Wikipedia's success mainly depends on its users - the Wikipedians. In theory, everybody can be a Wikipedian. This article is supposed to find out if the theory holds true in practice.

The idea is that the Wiki-community of Wikipedians is a special group of people, who have special characteristcs. To account for these special characteristics, I have provided the following Factor Model

User factors: - Openness - Computer Skills - Motivation - Neutrality - Flat hierarchy

Knowledge factors: - Type of knowledge - Fast changing rate - Peer review

Technology factors: - Easy usability - Fast access - Infinite reach, multilingual - Flexible structure - Safe

All these factors play together to accomplish the goal of succesful knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.

Comments, feedback and own ideas are very welcome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.201.44.249 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 April 2006 .

For newcomers to become Wikipedians and contribute effectively to Wikipedia, they must learn how to edit articles and follow the guidelines. Wikis in general (and Wikipedia in particular) excel at collaborative editing, and one of their key strengths is the efficiency of educating new users. A newcomer can simply try editing a page, set a watch on it, and wait for other Wikipedians to change things. On Wikipedia, the changes that tend to "stick" are those which amount to real improvements, for example: (a) better content; (b) more elegant wikitext; (c) greater conformance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Merely by observing what more-experienced Wikipedians do to his or her edits, a newcomer can experience a kind of apprenticeship. Many if not most people find this much more enjoyable and engaging than trying to learn a complex editing system without active human assistance, strictly from RTFM. Manuals typically describe a system in general at great length, presenting lots of information a given user is bound to find personally irrelevant, which tends to overwhelm a user's short-term memory when trying to solve a specific problem. With Wikipedia, any person with an Internet connection can follow simple instructions to create an account, and then quickly obtain personally-relevant feedback from more-experienced users, to augment and focus the otherwise tedious reading of manuals. The clever design of the MediaWiki software efficiently delivers a system for web page creation backed up by expert human intelligence, enabling users at all levels of learning the system to contribute effectively, with the more-experienced users easily able to monitor what the less-experienced users are doing, and gently show them the way. Teratornis 13:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it alive?

A living brain receives a constant stream of information from its environment. It processes this information together with all of the things it has laid down in the past. It processes many transformations of the information in parallel. "Behaviour" or "ideas" are the result of a consensus process where diffferent "lower down" processes compete to influence "higher up" manifestations and decision making. It's got an immune system to protect it from malicious damage. I am a neuron, this box on my desk is a synapse, and that wire running down the street is an axon.

Is it conscious? Hey, I'm part of it and I've got some concept (however limited) of the whole of it. Seems like consciousness to me.--Joesydney 07:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is conscious like the stock market is conscious: in other words it's not. Wikipedia brown 22:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing good about wikipedia

"Wikipedia is not paper, and that is a good thing because articles are not strictly limited in size as they are with paper encyclopedias." also you won't get paper cuts!

--Nick Scratch 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is fruitless and damages Wikipedia's credibility

I have no idea what the point is.

To provide a foil for the criticisms of Wikipedia. People want to know both why people criticize Wikipedia, and why some people strongly support it Kevin 11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ease of access on censored computers

Frankly, one of the reasons I love Wikipedia is it's easily accessable on my school's computers. My school has a strong filter which can only be bypassed if you find a proxy that hasn't been blocked. Yet Wikipedia's only been blocked by my school's filters once, and only for a day. So, I have three questions. First, is it notable enough to go on this article? Second, is this just something that happens in my school, or are there other people who use Wikipedia a lot specifically because it's unblocked by their school? Third, if this is notable and widespread, where in the article should I put it? Kevin 11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

??

I thought Wikipedia doesn't allow essays or anything that doesn't qualify as encyclopedic content. This article is an essay (it is even clearly marked as an essay), and it probably belongs in one of Wikipedia's sister projects. --Mathew Williams 12:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In mainspace, it is not allowed. However in Wikipedia space, it is. (Tip:Wikipedia space are articles that have Wikipedia in front of the title. These pages are related to Wikipedia, they are essays, guidelines, policies, places where editors post questions or requests, Wikiprojects, and others. See Wikipedia:Project namespace for more information.)Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 09:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Ideals

This is from the first section on this page: >Where else can you get lovely articles on such-and-such town or so-and-so bizarre hobby written by actual residents/practitioners? (Of course, some view this as a curse.) Many articles on Wikipedia will likely never have an entry in a paper encyclopedia.<

Sounds great! But try to squeeze it through the "What Wikipedia is not" guidlines.JO 753 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Wouldn't it be better to have all the pros and cons on the same page? AndrewRT(Talk) 12:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Both articles articles are long, together they would be huge. Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great has 11.2 KiB, while Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great has 35.9 KiB. Together, that makes 47.1 KiB. See Wikipedia:Article size why that would not be so great. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 08:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Me, either. These two articles are long enough. Also,they use different POVs and aspects on Wikipedia, so they should not be merged.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree, and have removed the merge tags from the pages, as they have been there for a couple of months now. --Iamunknown 00:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Having side by side pros and cons would be more useful. 93.86.91.184 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

agree with merge, most of the content of both articles is subjective fluff, and can easily be mitigated into a single concise article. As it is articles are being redirected to this one side of the argument over the other (generally the Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great side) Zarathrustra (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is unnecesary

I ended up on Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great from following a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia commentary/Wikipedia quality, from Wikipedia Quality Survey.
This article is unencyclopedic, biased, cites no sources, offers no evidence to any one of its claims, and is, to say the least, masturbatory. Both this article and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great are wastes, albeit the latter offers somewhat of a better argument. Zarathrustra (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated.

Some of the things said in this article are no longer true. I started reworking the corresponding article on the Finnish Wikipeda which had remained largely untouched from 2004, and came here for inspiration. I did find some, but found that this article too sorely needs to be updated. Some of the idealism has worn and been replaced with realism, and this article should reflect that. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The vamdalism section

The vandalism section mentions none of the technical tools which we now have at our disposal. It is totally out of date. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)