This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
For some reason I can't view pictures on this computer for Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is the only problem site I have for pictures uploading. Anyone know why this might be? 71.173.60.113 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
hmm....
nope.(aren't I helpful =P) Hostile Hams 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Including only text files and pictures, among english version entries only, what would be the memory (roughly) required to download the entire Wikipedia site (again, only in English and with text and pictures only)? In other words, how much memory does it take for Wikipedia to store all the english files?
Thanks
I just had to edit multi-lingual back to the normal English multilingual. I seem to remember that MS spell checkers don't recognize the word and that may be the reason why the hyphenated form has come into being. I started working in the area of multilingualism back in the 1960s before we needed to bother with computerised aids - and then, I can assure you, it was without the hyphen! Ipigott 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Being a new wikipedia user, there's much I have to learn, but I was a little taken aback by what seems to be a draconian editorial policy on the site. it appears that articles are frequently deleted or edited for no good reason. i'm aware that we want to maintain a crop of good credible articles, but it seems that users are oftentimes too hasty in putting an article up for deletion, often citing neologisms or unreferenced material as the reason. as long as articles are accurate, verifiable and don't put forward a POV, shouldn't they merit inclusion? Linguelle 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the four links at the bottom are some kind of broken.
hsb:Wikipedija
cu:Википедї
diq:Wikipedia
zh-classical:維基百科
91.6.24.44 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is worthy of going in the criticisim section. Wikipedia admins frequently delete articles (such as brian peppers or the tourettes guy ) even if the public objects to it. Most non-members agree that one person isnt enough to decide weither or not an article should be deleted.
I'd like to see a replacement for the Talk page. One that resembles a forum package, such as Vbulletin. My biggest gripe with Talk is that other users can edit your comments. Also would be nice if it could support threaded replies...
I also agree with this idea, but adding support so that other users cannot edit your comments would be good enough. - ShogunPK
Is there a website that offers the same amount of content and information as Wikipedia? I need something more reliable and not as biased. I've searched the web and I couldn't find anything close to the size of Wikipedia.zfOctober 2006 (UTC)
Where (on the globe) was wikipedia launched from?
No offense, but I live in the USA (Florida, to be exact) and I'm tired of all the England terms. I would like more American terms. I'm exhausted from all the English stuff. I need stuff to be more U.S.A. accurate.
"Wikipedia" (sic.) is a spelling mistake of what should have been called Wikipaedia! Also, common spelling mistakes such as "color" (sic.), "flavor" (sic.), "humor" (sic.) abound and are really annoying to native English speakers in the rest of the world, including Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans as well as the British. Perhaps "Wikipedia" (sic.) should be retained for use by those from the United States of America who are too lazy to embrace the English language used by the rest of the world and "Wikipaedia" should become the official English language version. 86.131.3.156 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like it converted USA-terminology specific. Now how would I get it done? How do I start the campaign? My sister doesn't believe me because of all the editors.
Need I remind you England came first. Also, what're you complaining about, there's plenty of American words here, like Soccer. We invented the game only to have you rename it soccer and start playing rugby.
I'm Canadian, should I start a campaign for a version that uses "colour" and other Canadian spellings? If you don't understand the term, then consider making it a link to the article about it (or at least reading said article) or pointing out the lack of clarity in the talk page. Otherwise, just get used to it, this site is used by a lot more than just Americans. 75.153.221.227 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we please stop the debating over which is better, England or America. The Manual of Style says that there is no particular preference as to any particular dialect as long as the style remains consistent throughout the article, see WP:ENGVAR for the specifics. Arguing over which is better will get you nowhere. Harryboyles 02:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So what the Americans who post on this page are basically asking is that the rest of the world adjust their spelling/references etc to suit them? We don't complain when you talk about the color of the sulfur in the center. Let the rest of us discuss the colour of the sulphur in the centre. 81.145.240.91 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Ian Hopping 30 Dec 06
If users come to wikipedia with a topic (text/string?!) in mind, then they could have a good understanding about the topic and they could find some weblinks to go further. The content evolves as users use it.
Is that the basic idea?!
Forgot to add sig. :) -- V4vijayakumar 12:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Search string correction functionality is poor. Google’s “did you mean <right string>?” is more useful. If we enter “testdatabase” in search textbox, Wikipedia could not correct it to “test database”, but Google did it right. Not only this case, but in many cases Wikipedia fails to do the right thing. :(
Forgot to add sig. :) -- V4vijayakumar 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Online editable questions and answers could be a good idea. Let’s call it as “Wikipedia answers” (Google answers and Yahoo answers). Questions and evolving answers could be a great thing. As we can see from AOL user search strings release, most users enter questions as a search query. Expecting “Wikipedia answers” soon. :) -- V4vijayakumar 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Added new Wikipedia project. Is this right?! FYI, Wikipedia:WikiAnswers -- V4vijayakumar 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What's so bad about original research? Isn't that what most encyclopedias, online or offline, are comprised of? I mean, come on! The editors can do whatever they want with all the bad information, but what about the good information that happens to be original research? They get to filter out original research without trying to discern the real from the fake? What's up with that?!
Tongue-in-cheek pedantry: is the plural of "Wikipedia" either "Wikipediae" (with the ligature that I don't know how to type on the keyboard that I am using) or "Wikipedias", or are both admissable with respect to the manual of style ? I presume that both are OK due to the derivation of the word. Also, is Wikipedia a proper noun at all, I wonder, or should it be "wikipedia". I suspect that the growth of the various wikipedia projects means that a lower case word is now much more in order. After all, the word "dollar" is only capitalised if one is talking about a specific dollar, such as the Singapore Dollar (or even then ?). Answers only from the equally pedantic please :-) -- Ordew 17:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Could someone elaborate on the Funding section? I rembember wikpedia had a fund raising banner (like an ad), and reading media articles which mentioned WP's large bandwidth costs, but this page doesn't tell me much (bandwidth is $321K/quarter). What would be really interesting would be a profesional estimate of WP as a private company; top 20 on the web. - Peregrinefisher 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of the phrase, "an online advertising company that caters to a generally male audience and has hosted soft-core pornography"? It reads more like a value judgement more than informative content.
On Slashdot, I posted (as Pi_r_ed, but they don't allow brackets in names, so really Pi_r_[]ed) the following question:
"Why doesn't Wikipedia make their own mobile? It could be updated when connected to the computer, like an iPod, and I'm sure ads for it would replace any mentionings of donations..."
So, what do you at Wikipedia think? A Wikipedia "wPod" sort of device, with a touch screen to scroll and choose links, wi-fi to update itself, a keyboard post (or a T-Mobile_Sidekick type keyboard), for editing.
Of course, like I said above, Donations to Wikipedia would be a thing of the past. Of course, I ask for nothing else than recognition. Wikipedia has always been free, and for a small fee, can always be free. waittaminute... oh, nevermind. But, it got a (5, Interesting) on Slashdot, so it should go over well here to, right? Supermariorobot 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has been viewed as an experiment in a variety of social, political, and economic systems, including anarchy, democracy, and communism.", I was really interested in following this up but no sources are given, at all.-- JollyRogerz 05:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
After some wanderin about i found these:
Any of them (or perhaps none of them) may be suitable as a source/s. I'm not even sure how one would go about embedding these into the article... -- JollyRogerz 12:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should change the definition of wikipedia on the introduction: from "Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based free content encyclopedia project" to "Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based free content information bank; do you realy think that our english wikipedia is a encyclopedia, in the classic meaning? I dont think so. 88.155.171.119 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not add more simple english pages, especially under scientific stuff? Some of the articles are so overloaded with just stuff that it's annoying and confusing. I would do it myself, but I know practically nothing abouut the articles I'm talking about. (Obviously, or else I wouldn't be looking under simple english).
-- Not actually a member, just some guy 10/23/06
I was wondering I've recently changed my name from Jim Bart to Cali Drama King, but WP still resognizes me as Jim Bart, how do I change this? Cali Drama King 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are interested, here is a nearly heretic but interesting exercise:
What would Wikipedia.org be worth if it were a for-profit? http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=626
Is Wikipedia supposed to be humorous or serious?
I don't know, either way it's gangster, just joking; more serious less humorus, don't put silly jokes on articles it is considered vandalism, if you like humor you can go here to uncyclopedia. Pseudoanonymous 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it me or are there less Administrators with respect to the number of users on wikipedia? acorrding to Statistics the population of users is 2,599,916 while we have only 1,038 or 0.04% of administrators. Didn't it use to be 0.07? This is troubling Pseudoanonymous 04:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have come across talk pages where people don't sign their posts with four tildes. Not only is it annoying but it opens the way for flame wars directed at the wrong people, or at the poster who did not sign. Why not have it so that the four tildes are automatically entered when the text is sent? I'm sure there might be more involved but why not something of that nature? Stovetopcookies 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I know, but the word should be explained before or immediately after its first use in the article.-- Greg K Nicholson 06:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There is too much UK spelling or references on wikipedia. Wikipedia was created by a man from ALABAMA...that's as American as it gets. However, when one looks for British people say john wiki says: John was a man. When one looks for American john wiki says: John was an American man. Also, color, labor, not colour and labour. Finally, I nobody cares about how high 50 cent got on 'UK charts' or the percentage of British kids think timbuktu is real. just because the website begins EN.wik... doesn't mean its English. USA! -- Blambloom 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Last I checked, Wikipedia does not simply provide an American view of anything. Seems pretty dumb to exclude the United Kingdom out of information. Then again, you sound like the kind of guy who still thinks the South won the war. 71.173.60.113 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
...or leading little Christian sects, or getting into Wikipedia edit wars, or boring their friends... [1] -- Striver 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
i think that thers material relevant for this article
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-30/Wikipedia_valuation
-- Pixel ;-) 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
' Network reliability' is a fairly generic and short section (it could be applied to many sites that have those kind of problems). I'm wondering what the consensus is on deleting the section and associated images, as it doesn't really add to the article much. CloudNine 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
. Editiing Problem...
Furthermore, whilst a person whom I would prefer to reamin anonymous, has told me that he was trying to edit a page of a school he used to go to, called St John's College (Portsmouth, England), and he added a sports section, which I must say was rather good. But somehow, this section was all of a sudden deleted. I do not know if this was done on purpose, but every time I try to add something to that page, it doesn't work. If this is a techinical problem, then may someone alert me now. All he is trying to do is tell people about this school's excellent sports program, but someone is too arrogant or embrassed, or I don't know what, but can you please let him be, or if I am making a mistake, please tell me. Thank you.
While arguably quite difficult to prove, or show accurate/unbiased examples, I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed that many of the articles relating to conservative politicians or media personalities on the U.S. site, which previously may have had a "Criticisms" section added to their page, have mysteriously had these sections removed, regardless of an end to the alleged criticism or not. Alternatively, many liberal politicians or media commentators may have additions of "Criticisms" added to their page, which are not thoroughly explained or could be seen as illegitimate claims. DJWhamo 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not evident to me why an encyclopedic entry should even include a "criticisms" section. I find far too many editors confuse NPOV with providing every possible POV in existence. Most entries are overwritten. 69.139.75.80 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I too have noticed that, such as when I was adding the ex-section to that St. John's topic
Although, it was not because of political views, it is the same basic principle. Furthermore, it is funny how that happens? No offense to anyone, but oddly enough, stuff like this happens more to conservative views, and their views are always the ones which are far more attacked.
In the aftermath of Daniel Brandt's accusation in November 2006 that there was (a modest amount of) plagiarism evident in Wikipedia articles (e.g. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/11/04/1162340080487.html), I went looking for guidelines for Wikipedia contributors.
I found guidance in relation to copyright infringement, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F
But I found little relating to plagiarism, apart from the not-entirely-helpful and not-entirely-accurate "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted" that appears on Edit-pages.
I think guidance in relation to plagiarism should be provided.
I published a refereed paper on 'plagiarism by academics recently. I've adapted some of it in order to develop a proposal, which is presented below.
I can't quickly see where I should put it, so I put it here.
Correspondence to [email protected].
__________________________
GUIDANCE TO WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTORS RE PLAGIARISM
Generally: (a) large blocks of text from other sources should *not* be included within Wikipedia articles; (b) ideas, paraphrases and quotations from other sources *can* be included within Wikipedia articles; (c) where a Wikipedia article makes signficant use of a particular source: (i) it is not necessary to provide attribution to a source within the text; but (ii) reference to it should be included in the recommended reading list at the end of the article.
__________________________
DISCUSSION
Plagiarism is a lot more complicated than people think. Serious plagiarism occurs, but most isn't all that grievous. Appropriate approaches depend on a number of factors, including the nature of the work
The following is a general discussion of the nature of the work: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Plag0602.html#RTFToC29
That paper doesn't mention encyclopaedias, but an encyclopaedia approximates to a textbook. The following is a specific proposal relating to "Evaluation Criteria for Plagiarism in a Textbook": http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Plag0602.html#RTFToC24
The most common approach adopted by textbook authors is "no citation within the text, but attribution to the source in notes at the end of each chapter or the book as a whole". That's appropriate and effective for textbooks. So it would seem a sensible default approach or benchmark for encyclopaedias as well.
Generally, a reference work: (a) draws on other works; (b) includes a lot of information that is generally known; and (c) makes the information readily accessible
(and of course smothering it in references conflicts with that aim).
The need for attribution increases with: (a) the degree of originality of the copied material; and (b) the size of the copied material: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Plag0602.html#RTFToC31
In the case of an encyclopaedia, copying without attribution is likely to be of greatest concern where: (a) there is verbatim or near-verbatim copying of:
(i) a whole article; or (ii) segments of substantial size (e.g. at least a key paragraph); or
(b) copying of ideas that are highly original.
Even in these cases, general attribution (i.e. no attribution within the text, but inclusion of details of the source in a reasonably adjacent bibliography, e.g. in a recommended reading list at the end of the article) is sufficient: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Plag0602.html#RTFToC32
Copyright is a completely separate issue from plagiarism, and is the subject of separate Guidance, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F
The second reference says I don't have permission. see here. - Peregrinefisher 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Are Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, and such traditional encyclopedias Wikipedia's competitors? Their so different. At their core, these are are traditional paper encyclopedias and wikipedia is a free-content online work. If so, how do we which encyclopedia is ahead. There is no market share or sales to base a comparison. I don't think you could compare number users or articles, accuracy of those articles, or hits to the website. Wikipedia is so different from Britannica. How do we know which encyclopedia is winning.-- Wikiphilia 05:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are the Wikipedia statistics (e.g. about active Wikipedians) not accessable anymore? Markus Schulze 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Wikipedians really a word? Surely in the article they should be referred to as users? (I'd change it, but the page is protected). 82.32.8.6 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find how:
"Note: Because Wikipedia articles are made by many people, some articles may contain untrue information, so, before using Wikipedia in a project make sure that the references are from trustworthy sites."
found its way into the popular culture section but it was certainly out of place so I removed it.
raptor 01:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
When writing or editing an article, how do you add stuff like subheadings, tables of contents, and those funky colored boxes that say stuff like "this article is a stub..."(does it have something to do with html, or whatever the heck it's called, because if it does, I have no clue how to do that kind of stuff). Nineteenninetyfour 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Is this article ever really going to be neutral when it's written by Wikipedians? Robocracy 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
skiedn wimkis slkieee
even if there is massive vandalism, unlock it ! 72.36.230.178
It's just a few articles left to one and a half million. -- 84.231.172.81 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Just want people to know that they should avoid using wikipeidia as a source of information. Too much POV and anyone can write what they want.Their policy on source of information is weak.What's worse is if they don't like what you've written,they block you. But that is not to say we shouldn't try and improve it.
Here's a good story of how wikipedia posts what the writers want to post:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
Nadirali 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
Considering that Wikipedia has now been mentioned on the show Jericho - in fact viewers all over the world have been advised to look up Jericho (TV Series) on the wikipedia to find out about up and coming episodes! 210.84.35.147 15:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder. Stovetopcookies 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Story here. Interesting to add to the article. function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage): Void 10:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I find it laugh out loud hilarious that the subsection on Citations under Criticism and Controversy contains not just one but TWO citation tags.
For the love of all that is holy, if anyone has a source that can be cited as a reference for this section, please cite it! SmartGuy 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I've looked thoroughly, but I could be wrong.
I don't think the page mentions what time zone Wikipedia operates in.
"Current time" doesn't seem especially relevant on Wikipedia, especially because there are many current times. But the "Featured Article" ... I would assume it changes at midnight. Is this midnight in Florida?
Midnight GMT? Seoul?
Oh, It is also used when signig, with timestamp.
Thanks, anyway.--
The Chairman 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The featured article changes at midnight Coordinated Universal Time -- Henrygb 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I simply find it a bit ironic that the article on Wikipedia itself has stub sections and isn't featured. I mean, it's a bit embarrassing, isn't it..? New users will come here to find more about Wikipedia, as I did.. Wikipedia simply isn't represented too well by this article. Clientele 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
How many people visit Wikipedia per month? Using the caption "Wikipedia receives over 2000 page requests per second. More than 100 servers have been set up to handle the traffic.", that's 5.184 billion people each month. But other sources I talk to say seven, even fourteen billion access Wikipedia a month. --
Zanimum 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that doesn't make me 100 people. I can't answer your question myself. But I hope that explains how Wikipedia is being used by more people than there are - and certainly more than IPs. Either this, or Aliens...-- The Chairman 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please remove image "Wikipedia-pagelink-chart.svg" from "Characteristics" section. The caption is almost as obscure as the image itself, and it all looks like unsourced original research to me. Thanks. 83.67.217.254 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just call it a compound word? Please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.205.183.128 ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
According to Guardian, Iran blocked access to Wikipedia. Do we have an article about blocking of Wikipedia in various countries? I know about the one about China, but AFAIK, Wikipedia has been blocked in other countries too, like Tunisia or Saudi Arabia. bogdan 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
One suggestion would be that those who edit wikipedia regurarly are somewhat "geeks". You may not want to use that exact word. Marqmike2 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You should address the persistent (and important to many contributors) question of why you suddenly have an army of editors deleting articles - as opposed to devoting their time to, say, editing article content and improving layout / proofreading. This subject was recently discussed (somewhat lightheartedly) in a New York Times article. So why are y'all doing this? Are you trying to alleviate a bandwidth shortage? Why so much eagerness to excise others' contributions of so many articles? Why give a crap so dang much, and who exactly grants these editors their positions of authority anyway? If there's a logical explanation for why this has become a priority, please explain.
Obviously, I have an opinion - I quarrel with the motivation and the execution of the new Wikipedia deletion surge. If Wikipedia isn't a suitable place to record and explain small bits of our world (such as passing pop culture phenomena, for instance) then where is? I have read the deletion guidelines, the policies on notoriety, but yet I still see, routinely, these guidelines applied arbitrarily, subjects of great magnitude of interest deleted, while other indisputably lessor subjects remain enshrined the hallowed halls of Wikipedialand. And this biased, imperfect deletion policy is towards what end?
And then all the lingo of "salting" to denote banning subjects - is nothing if not mean-spirited and elitist. To deny the public the right to write about any subject -ever-again- reeks of a betrayal of what this thing is supposed to be about - a democratic submission policy about collecting knowledge - in all its pros and cons, messy splendor. That a Wikipedia cabal has been deputized to delete and ban the submission of certain subjects (and that anyone would applaud the act) seems to serve little purpose, and certainly not a democratic one. 24.199.84.215 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Says you. Please explain your argument further than stating it as if it were self evident. Beyond that, please explain why it's A) become such a priority to delete so much and so speedily, and B) where the checks and balances are in your deletion policy in order to guard against bias. There is a definite slippery slope to worry about here when you're relying on the odd birds who eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia to also be the arbiters of notoriety and relevance. Kindly explain why this collection of oddly motivated volunteers make up the ideal group to decide what is or isn't important information to share with the world. Seems pretty shoddy and arbitrary. More importantly of all - if the deletion process is so shoddy and arbitrary, so ripe for abuse and misuse, then wouldn't the drawbacks of instituting the policy outweigh the goals? 24.199.84.215 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, for the benefit of those working on this article and related articles, that according to Wikipedia's own first three press releases, until 2004--including two press releases that I didn't have anything at all to do with--I was billed as a founder of Wikipedia. See:
Also, until 2004 or 2005, all of the articles about me, Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia, and even Jimmy gave me billing as co-founder of Wikipedia. Just thought it might be useful to point this out for those who weren't aware of it. -- Larry Sanger 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
12/8/2006
My daughter was looking up information on Wikipedia on (of all things) Wikipedia, and she was presented with a very large (and very ugly, I might add) image of a woman's labia. Why?
Fixpc4u 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia's article and you will see VERY inappropiate pictures! PLEASE IMMEDIATLEY BAN THE USER Stellaartois AT ONCE! HE'S VERY TRICKY! EVERY TIME WE TRY TO FIX IT, HE PUTS UP ANOTHER PHOTO! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.3.19 ( talk) 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
I know, I saw that too. I left a message on someone's user page telling them about it, I myslef couldn't edit it because it was locked.
MY SEVEN-YEAR OLD SON SUDDENLY SAW THIS DISTURBING PICTURE! PLEASE REMOVE IT AT ONCE AND FOREVER BLOCK THESE IDIOTIC PHOTOS!
the Wikipedia grouth chart needs to be updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.104.8 ( talk) 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Is it just me, or is there a penis on the page there? I can't find the template it came from though. Do I need to clear my cache? :/ RHB 10:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
someones got to correct thearticel please it's got DESU written all over it
I'm still seeing 6 images of a penis on this article. Could the main admin please correct the templates (or whatever) and ban the aforementioned user? 193.217.63.184 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, it's fixed now. 193.217.63.184 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's still on here! B e a rly 541 09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The article states Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report has oft times instigated his viewers to vandalize articles in humorous ways, once doing so on the wikipedia article on bears. In fact, the article was about elephants, not bears. 12.76.50.200 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Aunt Peggy
Ref #4, "Note that it is the United States copyright law that applies to all of Wikipedia's content." has a {{ fact}} tag in it. It looks like someone's trying to make a footnote of some sort and it's a little confusing. -- WikiSlasher 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
heres somthing i found in the paper this morning that might be of intrest to this article, its about a study of about the amount of stress people feel when they used the web, commissioned by a company called rackspace and caried out by "experts" from the social issues research centre in oxford. all well and good. the thing is, they released a list of websites that were the most stress free to use and wikipedia came top acording to the research, and i was wondering if that stat could have a place in this article?-- JWJW|Have a nice day :) 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So far wikipedia has done a good job with all of its articles. Everyone knows wikipedia is most likely going to be the most informational encyclopedia if it already isn't! The only thing that wikipedia can change is that they should make it so that you have an account to edit stuff.
Ghetto USB 19:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Ghetto USB
The first paragraph of this section reads as follows (boldfacing added):
The boldfaced section suggests to me that unregistered users can create articles. But they can't, can they? Does anyone else read this passage the way I do? ForDorothy 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, I was first described as co-founder of Wikipedia back in September 2001 by The New York Times. That was also my description in Wikipedia's own press releases from 2002 until 2004. With my increasing distance from the project, and as it grew in the public eye, however, some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny my crucial, formative involvement. In fact, in the early years of the project, my role was not in dispute at all.
The following links have come to light, and they should dispel much of the confusion:
http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html
-- Larry Sanger 22:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a recent trend in Q4 2K6 towards protecting a fairly large proportion of article pages on the English Wikipedia, and semi-protecting even more. Every day, it seems, I run across at least one new example in the course of some research or other, not counting the Pic of the Day or other things included into the main page that change daily.
Does this result from an increasing level of vandalism, perhaps more specifically an increase in the ratio of vandals to responsible editors making the latter resort to increasingly blunt instruments to combat the former? (The previous trend was an increase in the policing of articles by bots, which fits the hypothesis.) There also seems to be an increasing tendency to discriminate between registered and unregistered users, from image editing (registered only) to new article creation (ditto) and the increase of semi-protection. I'm not sure this makes much sense as a policy; registered or not, ultimately all that's known about a user that's useful for separating wheat from chaff is their IP address and past edit history. Registering under a new name is easy and whitewashes your edit history, unless the edit history for the IP is considered anyway. Registration is, in short, useless for any kind of "security" purpose, and mainly useful to let people more easily edit pseudonymously rather than anonymously (as signing automatically includes a pseudonym you'd otherwise have to manually enter) and to let a person who chooses to maintain a single identity and edit history even if they have a dynamic IP address.
Of course, the article on Wikipedia makes no mention of these kinds of changes, either de jure or just de facto, in the sitewide emergent editorial policy, and there doesn't seem to be any one-stop-shop for the latest news or scuttlebutt regarding policy evolution either. (A link to it seems to belong in this article, once it exists of course. It will have to be created by someone other than me, because I hate registering at websites and the attendant incremental privacy risks, identity/password-management load, and other incremental stresses attendant thereupon.)-- 74.104.131.76 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Being as this has been a source of controversey of late and this article is likely to be viewed by many as an authoritative source, I think it is slightly irresponsible to state this information without at least providing a footnote to where a more in depth discussion of the founding and the roles of these two individuals can be found. From what little I've gleaned of this on talk pages and in articles where this information is cited to some degree it seems they both agree that Jimbo was a creator and Larry calls himself a co-creator but Jimbo doesn't agree with that. I'm not even necessarily suggesting that this should be changed to just Jimbo, but I think that there should be a footnote/reference/something. The infobox is too prominent a place to contain this information in such a naked way. savidan (talk) (e@) 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
How do I add pictures, photos, and things like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.180.238 ( talk • contribs)
There is nothing in here that says "THIS IS WIKIPEDIA" or anything like that :O 24.107.103.220 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In the bias section
"For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[55]"
has been added, personally it seems abit bias in it self, as the sourced used is a religous one. Also the example programme given from CNN is not well known outside of the U.S.A, does any one know of a more internationally known example? Thought I'd flag it up here to see what people think. Struds 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but how do you create new pages? I am a new user. Thank you. - unsigned
Excuse me, but how do you redirect pages? (For example, if you type in asoue, you go to a series of unfortunate events). I am a new user. Thank you.
#REDIRECT article to where this should lead
What is the common proper abbreviation for "Wikipedia", for use on internal talk pages? It would be good if this article mentioned that in passing, right at the start. 69.87.202.73 14:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
MERRY CHRISTMAS, WIKIPEDIA AND AHAPPY ANOTHER YEAR!!! sorry, I couldn't help it -- Chikinpotato11 12:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I wonder whether some of the content on "Wikipedia in other formats" should be broken off to another main article / list? Edratzer 01:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The image we're using: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_growth.png
Is innacurate due to the recent lack of stats for English language growth, i believe due to stats not being recorded anymore, giving the impression that growth has stopped on English language Wikipedia which is obviously not the case). What can we do about this? Benbread 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Why have a wikipedia page on wikipedia? It is a poitless page and is taking up space. I dont have the authority to delete it.-- SerpentsTail 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SerpentsTail ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
This page is a history of wikipedia that someone might not be able to find elsewhere, plus, its a well writen article and its long and not a stub, deleting this article would be pointless Thedarksage 22:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The evdince on this page is amazing 2 prove him gulity! Fattdoggy 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not being stupit about this, what's the difference between Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia that we see online and the encyclopedias that we see in the librarys across the United States. I would have to say for my guess that Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia is the #1 best. You will have to thank me on that one. I love Wikipedia! --- Ohioian 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC}
someone should add this.
main article: Chinese Wikipedia Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China
I am not sure if those two are the same article, the titles are different. it is the same person who wrote for those two newspapers. On the other hand, the words seem to be different. I am not a paid member of nyt, so I don't know what is in the NY times article, the quoted text was the only thing that I read.
According to International Herald Tribune Asia-Pacific:"on sensitive questions of China's modern history or on hot-button issues, the Chinese version diverges so dramatically from its English counterpart that it sometimes reads as if it were approved by the censors themselves." Chinese-language Wikipedia presents different view of history
On December 1, 2006, The New York Times published another report by Howard W. French, titled as "Wikipedia lays bare two versions of China's past."
"Some say the object should be to spread reliable information as widely as possible, and that, in any case, self-censorship is pointless because the government still frequently blocks access to Wikipedia for most Chinese Internet users. 'There is a lot of confusion about whether they should obey the neutral point of view or offer some compromises to the government,' said Isaac Mao, a well-known Chinese blogger and user of the encyclopedia. 'To the local Wikipedians, the first objective is to make it well known among Chinese, to get people to understand the principles of Wikipedia step by step, and not to get the thing blocked by the government."
And "the articles are already pre-censored by party-leaning moderators and users." [3]-- SummerThunder 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Including only text files and pictures, among english version entries only, what would be the memory (roughly) required to download the entire Wikipedia site (again, only in English and with text and pictures only)? In other words, how much memory does it take for Wikipedia to store all the english files?
Thanks, -Kitra101
#REDIRECT Main_Page ;) Stuart Morrow 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)