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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 30 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

Article milestones Date Process Result February 5, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 9, 2005 Peer review Reviewed April 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted April 1, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept August 1, 2006 Featured article review Demoted September 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed August 12, 2008 Peer review Reviewed August 15, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept July 21, 2009 Peer review Reviewed July 26, 2012 Peer review Reviewed November 7, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2014 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited September 5, 2014 Good article reassessment Delisted May 21, 2021 Peer review Reviewed February 4, 2023 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 12, 2023 Peer review Reviewed A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 15, 2005. This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007. Current status: Former featured article

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.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: Keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2022, see discussion. Keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2019, see discussion. Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2017, see discussion. Delete (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2016, see discussion. Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2015, see discussion. Speedy keep, 7 April 2014, see discussion. Tedium (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2014, see discussion. No consensus (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2011, see discussion. Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2010, see discussion. Speedy close (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2010, see discussion. Speedy keep, 6 September 2008, see discussion. Speedy close, 17 May 2007, see discussion. Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2006, see discussion.

This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Wikipedia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance). Internet Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Brands Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Reference works ( inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on September 10, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Nicholson Baker (2008-04-09). "How I fell in love with Wikipedia [1]". The Guardian. "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Telegraph (UK). 2009-08-17. Stephen McNeice (2013-05-14). "See how Wikipedia updates in real-time". Newstalk. David Stabler (2013-05-11). "Wikipedia a passion for Portland's Jason Moore". The Oregonian. Taleen Postian (2022-11-03). "Why So Much Hate on Wikipedia?". The Villanovan.

To-do list for Wikipedia:  ·  history ·  watch ·  refresh · Updated 2024-01-05 Long term goal: return to featured status Article structure has been significantly changed and needs fixing and further improvement. See if anything from Italian page can be used to improve this one. Consider implementing any suggestions made by the most recent peer review, including the automated peer-review suggestions. Implement suggestions made by the 2012 Peer Review. Improve/Add Citations Fix the problems that were found in the 2012 FAC Add demographic information from pew report [1] Stylistic problems, specifically: ...the single-sentence paragraphs, the lack of flow within paragraphs, the broken connections between paragraphs, the weak large-scale architecture in the article, the huge number of references for a paltry amount of data, the lack of distinction between important and trivial facts. Record a new audio file once it reaches FA standard Other: Is it worth having an FAQ like other heavy traffic articles? E.g. "Why should Wikipedia have an article on itself?" The "sub-articles" that were split off from this article are badly in need of attention, as are several other related articles. The following all need work: Reliability of Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia Wikipedia in popular culture History of Wikipedia — this one in particular is missing information and should be reorganized Can we get the first three of these into a template somehow? Many other language Wikipedia articles of questionable notability, particularly the smallest ones. A thorough going through is needed, with non-notable articles being AFD material. Images: update graph in history section Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Add information about how well the open model is working. The number of articles protected and its evolution in time. Even better, share of reads (hits) according to page protection status.

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → List of Wikipedia controversies ( diff)

This talk page is only for discussions concerning the improvement of Wikipedia's article on itself. To ask questions about using Wikipedia, see the Help desk or The Teahouse. To get help with reference questions, see the Reference desk. To discuss Wikipedia policy or practices, see the Village pump. For other useful links, see the Community portal. The question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on itself has been raised many times before, and the answer is definitely yes.

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened: January 6 to 12, 2013 September 8 to 14, 2013 September 15 to 21, 2013 September 22 to 28, 2013 September 29 to October 5, 2013 October 6 to 12, 2013 January 19 to 25, 2014 February 16 to 22, 2014 February 23 to March 1, 2014 March 9 to 15, 2014 Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org Section sizes Section size for Wikipedia (67 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 11,510 11,510 History 45 30,538 Nupedia 3,597 3,597 Launch and growth 13,643 13,643 Milestones 13,253 13,253 Openness 673 14,268 Restrictions 3,881 3,881 Review of changes 1,735 1,735 Vandalism 3,968 3,968 Edit warring 4,011 4,011 Policies and content 4,242 6,694 Content policies and guidelines 2,452 2,452 Governance 1,008 5,738 Administrators 1,821 1,821 Dispute resolution 1,023 2,909 Arbitration Committee 1,886 1,886 Community 7,815 12,419 Studies 2,530 2,530 Diversity 2,074 2,074 Language editions 12,758 14,756 English Wikipedia editor numbers 1,998 1,998 Reception 9,081 56,295 Accuracy of content 13,329 13,329 Discouragement in education 4,577 7,191 Medical information 2,614 2,614 Coverage of topics and systemic bias 5,846 11,850 Coverage of topics and bias 2,230 2,230 Systemic biases 3,774 3,774 Explicit content 6,351 6,351 Privacy 3,697 3,697 Sexism 4,796 4,796 Operation 16 27,094 Wikimedia Foundation and affiliate movements 7,787 7,787 Software operations and support 5,603 5,603 Automated editing 3,887 3,887 Hardware operations and support 3,455 3,455 Internal research and operational development 2,937 2,937 Internal news publications 1,668 1,668 The Wikipedia Library 1,741 1,741 Access to content 127 26,306 Content licensing 5,192 5,192 Methods of access 8,346 17,611 Mobile access 9,265 9,265 Chinese access 2,265 2,265 Copycats 1,111 1,111 Cultural influence 45 50,065 Trusted source to combat fake news 1,563 1,563 Readership 3,378 7,732 COVID-19 pandemic 4,354 4,354 Cultural significance 10,681 21,556 Awards 3,948 3,948 Satire 6,927 6,927 Sister projectsWikimedia 3,161 3,161 Publishing 4,461 4,461 Research use 11,547 11,547 Related projects 3,461 3,461 See also 641 641 Notes 36 36 References 17 21,475 Wikipedia-affiliated and primary sources 2,291 2,291 Other sources 19,167 19,167 Further reading 22 16,051 Academic studies 4,861 4,861 Books 3,883 3,883 Book review–related articles 938 938 Other media coverage 6,347 6,347 External links 1,206 1,206 Total 298,553 298,553

Grammar school handed me a loathsome fixation on parallel structure before sending me on my way, so I’m compelled to suggest a revision of this sentence in the first paragraph: “It has been ranked consistently one of the 10 most popular websites in the world, ranks number 7th as the most visited website on the Internet, and, as of 2023, ranks as the 4th most viewed website by Semrush.”

My issue is with “ranks number 7th as the most visited…” and “ranks as the 4th most viewed.”

At a minimum, “ranks as the 7th most visited” would treat the problem, but seeing that this is the Wikipedia page for Wikipedia itself, I’d propose a bit more:

“It consistently ranks as one of the 10 most popular websites [on the Internet]*, and as of 2023 it is ranked the 4th most viewed and 7th most visited website on the Internet by Semrush.” []* redundant unless needed for accuracy (websites implies internet, as far as I know)

My main gripe is that we change “number 7th” to “7th” or “number 7,” and if I’m really lucky, that the structure be more consistent and pleasing to a keen reader’s eye. JizzyRizz ( talk) 07:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ JizzyRizz: I've taken on board your suggestion as I re-wrote this sentence. I removed the reference citing '4th most viewed', as the ranking excludes some sites, and it just generally introduces confusion. It's also currently listed as number 6 on the most visited list, up from number 7. I've retained the 'in the world' wording, as I think it's often used to qualify these things (for some people, Internet does not imply world). Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Links on the Wikipedia page, and all of them, turn black when clicked instead of purple, which makes it harder to find them again and get to the topic I want after I have lost it. Can this issue be fixed please? -Different Hums 2406:3003:2077:173E:FC5E:50AC:A8EA:6BC9 ( talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Already being worked on. In the future, please report technical issues at WP:VPT - this page is only for discussions concerning the improvement of Wikipedia's article on itself, as the banner at the top says. 57.140.16.1 ( talk) 15:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I reported here because it was my first time with an issue. I didn’t know there was a page for technical issues until you pointed it out to me. 2406:3003:2077:173E:58F3:72B2:3A81:68F1 ( talk) 02:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I see there's no matter on my mobile. The links are blue as normal. 2001:EE0:4BC4:4240:71D2:A29:A5C4:100E ( talk) 15:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Oops. It remains blue still after even clicking links. Maybe my phone works well. 2001:EE0:4BC4:4240:71D2:A29:A5C4:100E ( talk) 15:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Folklore: Is this a current endeavor? I have seen it in one instance but when I looked for it, I couldn't find it as an endeavour; only as pages of the many different cultural references and other relevant information, including detailed definitions and information therefore. Please, if this is a current endeavour, contact me. I am quite interested in this topic! Reikimom333 ( talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Try Folklore and category:Folklore, that should lead to many other pages on Wikipedia. Quite a good collection here. Thanks for checking and not giving up (probably not the page for it but who knows). Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Many thanks, Randy Kryn. I'm just so glad to find such a collection of folklore that is here. It could always use more, and I shall keep the hope for more and future contributions. Reikimom333 ( talk) 17:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn Hi, CEO at its article is defined as

A chief executive officer (CEO) (executive officer, or just chief executive (CE), or as managing director (MD) in the UK) is the highest officer charged with the management of an organization – especially a company or nonprofit institution.

The highest officer is a very important person that many decisions should be made with her. The introduction of such an important person in Infobox is very helpful. But the highest officer does not exist for Wikipedia, but maybe its duties are delegated to its upper officer.

Wikipedia is hosted and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization which also operates Wikipedia-related projects such as Wiktionary and Wikibooks.

Making such decisions for Wikipedia as well as Wikicommons and others is done by Maryana Iskander. And introduction of her in Infobox is very helpful. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh ( talk) 14:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello Hooman Mallahzadeh. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a non-profit organization. You are thinking of the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns, funds, and maintains the encyclopedia via equipment and legal assistance. But there is no CEO of Wikipedia, the title does not have a place in the day-by-day and case-by-case managing hierarchy. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn I have a question:

• If someone wants to propose an idea for Wikipedia, for example, he proposes a new Logo for it (because he is making a more informative one) who should he talk to? Probably Maryana Iskander makes the final decision. Am I wrong?

It proves that these duties are delegated from "CEO of Wikipedia" office to "CEO of Wikimedia" office. Hooman Mallahzadeh ( talk) 14:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Interesting question. But no, she could not change the logo, the Wikipedia community as a whole would have to discuss and "vote" on such a change (as far as I know anyway, maybe I'm mistaken but I would think that the CEO stays as hands-off Wikipedia as possible. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos for a history of the globe-logo). Others who work for the Foundation, and would be working under the CEO, may read this and hopefully comment. May be worth pinging Jimbo Wales, who would have organizational insight on your question and interest in adding the CEO to the infobox. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Should the lede mention systemic bias criticisms? They’re not a really prominent part of coverage of Wikipedia. Zanahary ( talk) 04:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, it should. Whether people talk about it or not, it's still a significant aspect of Wikipedia. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by “whether people talk about it or not”? If it’s not a prominent theme in Wikipedia’s coverage in reliable sources, we should reflect that here. Zanahary ( talk) 05:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

But people DO talk about it. A lot. There's thousands of articles on Scholar about this problem. It's the most significant criticism of WP and shouldn't be removed from the lead for WP:NPOV. Larataguera ( talk) 12:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Censorship... country's goverments seems redundant. Better restore to censorship... national governments. 2001:EE0:4BCA:B460:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E ( talk) 11:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done, thanks, your concern makes sense. This was a new edit and have asked that it be talked-paged if the editor wants to return it. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The text says in the section "Cultural influence" - awards: "In 2015, Wikipedia was awarded (both) the annual Erasmus Prize, which recognizes exceptional contributions to culture, society or social sciences," It would be good / nice / fair to add, that the prize specifically has been awarded to Wikipedia as a community - the collective enterprise of tens of thousands of volunteers who, worldwide, offer support to build the initiative" (Original text in Dutch: "De prijs werd in het bijzonder toegekend aan Wikipedia als community – de gezamenlijke onderneming van tienduizenden vrijwilligers die, wereldwijd, helpen om dit initiatief vorm te geven." see: website erasmusprijs.org) Thanks! VanArtevelde ( talk) 17:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I will like to have full right to edit any pages on this website. I wont do any random some promise 139.130.63.38 ( talk) 06:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. CMD ( talk) 06:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply