Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 6

message: This article has only been written by members of "Wikipedia". --SPUI (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misplaced SPUI comment

message: Allegedly, "Wikipedia.org alone gets 800 million hits a day, making it one of the top 50 websites in the world." (according to ) Are these number accurate? If not, why is it still found on wikimediafoundation.org? If so, why was it removed from this article, as I recall seeing the reference to "800 million hits" in an earlier version. Shawnc 19:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's traffic level 

message: The page lacks something about the origin of the name "wikipedia", does it really come from "wiki" and greek "paideia" ?
:Yes. Thryduulf 12:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name 

message: I was unclear on your previous answer. Did "wikipedia" really come from "wiki" and the greek "paideia"? 70.70.212.72
:"Paideia", Gr. "mutual nourishing of learning and culture" see e.g. encyclopaedia; "Wiki", Hawai'ian "Quick, informal". Perfectly legitimate name, what's so hard to understand?
:: Let me explain. Wikipedia is a corruption of encyclopaedia, which is the name of a depository of knowledge. 'Wiki' is the Hawaiian work for "quick", and the software that runs Wikipedia (indeed, all the Wiki projects) is called Wikimedia. Hence, Wikipedia. Hope that clears this up! Batmanand 22:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And let me correct that explanation.  The software used is MediaWiki, the projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation. – ABCD✉ 02:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep my fault. Was typing and not thinking. I did know that. Honest... Batmanand 16:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name 2

message: Am I imagining things, or is the Wikipedia "sphere" logo image in the article somewhat flatter than the actual logo (which can be seen at all times in the upper left corner)? Someone confirm or deny this, please; it's driving me crazy. :)  --Ashenai 11:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's you. They're identical except for the background - which is probably what makes it look flatter. --BigBlueFish 19:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo image looks kinda weird

message: These are both an important part of Wikipedia. Shouldn't they deserve a mention? - 211.30.179.151 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe... bear in mind though that the "important" WP: pages change relatively quickly. Yes now AN is riding high, and the village pump is less important. The announcements page has given way to the Signpost... this sort of thing might be documented on the meta page about the History of Wikipedia, but may be too trivial for this page which will be exported outside of Wikipedia itself. Pcb21| Pete 12:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Sign]] and [[WP:AN]] 

message: Curious as to what year Wikipedia is claimed to be founded? Thanks 
Scott 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says in the introduction, the English Wikipedia, the first, was started on 15 January 2001. -- Arwel 15:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Year Wikipedia is claimed to be founded?

message: Why is the quote by Robert McHenry started with "[h]owever"? I've never come across there being a problem with quoting full-sentence prose beginning with a capital letter before. --BigBlueFish 09:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  McHenry Quote 

message: Unless there are objections, I am going to add that Wikipedia is pronounced "wee-kee-peedia" because of the pronounciation of Wiki.
: I don't think everyone pronounces it like that; some, at least, pronounce it to rhyme with "stickypedia". — Matt Crypto 18:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not even that for some areas. Everyone I know pronounces the second i "short" - i.e. wicket-pedia without the t --BigBlueFish 19:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: I made some changes to the introduction that made it stay more "on point".  My changes were based on:
* making the first paragraph mention the very important "anyone can edit it" aspect, which seems so crucial that it belongs in the first paragraph and no later.
* devoting the second paragraph to discussing the credibility controversy
* devoting the third paragraph to talk about language versions/factoids
* noticing that Hitwise doesn't seem warranted to deem an encyclopedic page of its own in Wikipedia, so citing it for the most popular ref work doesn't make much sense in the intro (if someone makes an article on Hitwise that can establish its relevance, then ok)
* leaving mention of the GPL content license for the next section of the article, since it kind of pollutes the readability of the intro and is conceptually covered by saying "free content"
Some anonymous IP blindly reverted my work calling it "oddity", but I think they were out of line in doing that.  My edits were very obviously in earnest, and if someone didn't at least note that I hyperlinked neutral point of view and keep that then they probably didn't read it well enough to revert. Metaeducation 15:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to Introduction

message: Wikipedia is multilingual, but it isn't translingual. Why not? My user account doesn't cross over to other languages, and articles don't seem to be cross-linked across languages. I think it would add a lot to Wikipedia to have multilungual editors making links like this. I'd like to make a few myself.
:Many users are only capable of editing pages in one or a few languages only and it may not make sense to generate accounts for those who do not need it.  I'm not sure if there's an elegant way to link to articles in other languages, so I just use the full URL. Shawnc 03:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two elegant ways.  it:Wikipedia creates a link to the equivalent page in another language in the language box on the left side of the page.  :it:Wikipedia creates a link, which looks like this: :it:Wikipedia.  Chick Bowen 19:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translingual 

message: As of October 17, 2005, Wikipedia scored 181M google hits! (unsigned comment from anon)
: 163m hits on Nov 11, 2005 using this computer. Shawnc 03:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google hits 

message: Yes, very funny. If you have the concerns that you chose to publish on this page, please quote evidence to back up those concerns - so that a consensus can be reached on the way this should be phrased. Otherwise, that is POV and is not allowed. Ian Cairns 13:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Catch 22]] / [[Racism]]

message: Does anyone know if there will ever be a print version of Wikipedia? I mean, will this ever be put into print? -- Wikipedian2005 05:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:1.0 --TantalumTelluride 18:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Print Version of Wikipedia?

message: I pronounce it [ˌwɪkɪˈpidi.ə].  Does anyone else?  Ingoolemo talk 08:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Almost every time I visit this page it has been defaced. It needs to be locked. The article probably has all the infomation it will get. -- 2005-11-07 08:29:23 193.62.42.27
I strongly disagree. Even if it means that I have to revert all the vandalism on this page myself, i believe that the very last thing we should do is lock the article on "wikipedia" -- the very spirit of the encyclopedia is that every article is editable, and if we lock the article about the encyclopedia itself then we're sending a pretty mixed signal. TastemyHouse 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding precedence: the locked pages you mention are project pages, not articles.  Perhaps most pertinently, Wikipedia:About is unlocked.  Few policy pages are actually locked.  Ingoolemo talk 21:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be locked from non-sysop editing 

message: This comment goes somewhere in this article, I just cant decide where... ideas? --Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "''We make the [[internet]] not suck''" (from the PBS commentary or whatever it was...)

message: Wikipedia is falling apart by the SQL.
--69.128.154.57 06:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yep 

message: I have a request for all the venerable Wikipedia historians out there. I'm interested in the origin and originator of the now ubiquitous phrase "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Of course, the words "Wikipedia", "free" and "encyclopedia" have been used together in one sentence from times imemmorial, but I'm interested in the precise phrase with its charming double hyperbole (pretending that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which it most certainly wasn't during those early days, and pretending that it is the only free one). Archive.org shows that the phrase was inserted as the title of the main page between 26 Oct and 31 Oct 2001 when it replaced the somewhat uninspiring "HomePage". AxelBoldt 19:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh??  (I can't tell who &/or what this refers to -- clarification needed.) --   Curious1i 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  i am spamming Wikipedia:Requests for publication -- Zondor 22:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: Given today's history of this article, would it not be best to lock it? Jon Harald Søby \ no na 20:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And as this is one of the prime articles to attract vandals such vandalism is easily spotted and fixed. If we protect all the articles popular for vandalism, then pages much less monitored will get the nonsense edits, and then the vandalism may stay online much longer. andy 22:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting strategy, andy… The weird part is that when I think about it, it seems very clever. Jon Harald Søby \ no na 09:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Andy also.  Neither this page, nor Wikipedia:About should be protected, because it will make cleanup easier (as Andy said).  Ingoolemo talk 19:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism