Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 13

message: Do you have to be a certain age to create an account for Wikipedia ??? Jetstar888 04:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No you don't! And btw, please post new sections of discussion at the bottom of the page. It is easier to just click the "+" next to "edit this page" which automatically leads you there. To learn more on how Wikipedia works, please see Wikipedia:Tutorial. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! GizzaChat © 11:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous Question..... 

message: Policy information should really be concentrated into one section as much as possible. Currently policy links are littered all over the article, which is part of the reason there are so many of them. The "features" section, for instance, devolves into policy talk after the first paragraph.
I'm going to try to come up with a new logical layout for the article first rather than shuffling things about incrementally. Chris Cunningham 12:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the last paragraph of the introduction so that it doesn't enumerate all the policies, just explains they exist and refers to Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. That better? – Qxz 12:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also added this to the to-do list – Qxz 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead section is now 3,608 characters, down from 4,492 earlier this morning – Qxz 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Following pruning of the External Links and rewording of the "Encyclopedic characteristics" section, the size of the whole article is now 72Kb rather than 78Kb, which is hopefully more acceptable – Qxz 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though evidently not acceptable enough. Someone decided to attack it with a meat cleaver, and it's now 50Kb... – Qxz 09:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy 

message: The current article states, "Wikipedia receives over 2000 page requests per second.". Last time I heard, the number was 30,000. Who is correct? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that 2,000 figure has been in the article for a long time (i.e. years). Anyway, according to the stats (which we can cite in the article if necessary), it just about reaches 30,000 requests at peak times — though it falls below 10,000 during the quietest part of the day – Qxz 10:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've updateed the image caption – Qxz 10:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page requests 

message: Is the reason why it isn't listed here because of different cultures, nationalities, etc, pronouncing it different? I say Wick-kuh-peed-dee-uh (like Wicca) instead of Wee-kee-peed-dee-uh. Just curious. Disinclination 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. Now that you mention it, there used to be an IPA guide for pronouncing Wikipedia. I guess it got lost somewhere along the way. I'll restore it from a previous version... —msikma (user, talk) 09:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are at least three different ways in which it is pronounced; arguably the "correct" way to say it is the way that "wiki" is said in Hawaiian — "Wee-kee". Some people (e.g. Disinclination) say "Wick-kuh"... and others (such as me) say "Wick-ee". This being a written project I don't think anyone ever bothered to try to establish a standard pronounciation – Qxz 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You forgot "wih-kih", the way I usually pronounce it :) but yeah, there's no official version and unlike certain projects the way it's pronounced isn't any kind of community shibboleth. Chris Cunningham 12:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be interesting to gather audio recordings of people around the world saying "Wikipedia". I bet there would be tens of different pronunciations.--Pethr 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is the right one, but I like Why Kai pedia. ffm on 2007-02-19 19:29
I just burp. --NEMT 00:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So how do you pronounce Wikipedia? 

message: I'm just one person, but I hope that you will consider this constructive criticism.  I know that there can be differences of writing style, some preferring a richer 19th-century style while others favor a terse Hemingway-like style.   Likewise, I know that there may be differences of opinion on what should be included here, or how much weight or background any given facet of Wikipedia should be given.
That said, in my assessment, the ACID has been disastrous for this article.  I hope that no one will accuse me of being disloyal to Wikipedia or its ideal of open collaboration, but the present state of this article seems like wonderful supporting evidence for Jorge Cauz's statement that WP is a mass of random trivia, poor organization and wretched writing.  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, interesting and boring...one could go on and on and on.  Does anyone think that this is presently a good article that reflects well on Wikipedia?
It's not clear how it happened, but it seems to be a "too many cooks spoil the broth" kind of problem: severe systemic disagreements among editors on what should be covered and how.  My suggestion is that the active editors agree on an overall size and structure of the article (and its lead) first, and then integrate the far-flung factoids into well-written paragraphs within that structure.  It seems like 4 major sections would be good, say, Goals and Implementation, History, Encyclopedic assessment, and Impact.  "Implementation" would cover the editorial policies, practices and sociology, along with the hardware/software.  If the active editors could agree on a detailed article organization first, that might forestall others from massively rearranging and disemboweling their collective hard work afterwards; they could explain their rationale by pointing to an agreed-upon organization.  That would give us the hope of building a stable article by consensus, rather than something that will be torn down over and over again.
I'm very sorry to be so negative about the state of the article, but it's my honest assessment and I'm only saying it with the hope and goal of its eventual improvement.  Sometimes it's healthier to acknowledge problems, so that we can deal with them and make progress.  However, I also understand that others may not have the same perspective.  Willow 13:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the writing is that bad (although the single sentence paragraphs are a concern, and I see some redundancy), but I agree that this article needs a good massage to reattain featured status. I don't think I've ever even made an edit to this article, and I can't add it to my plate, but I'd like to see some improvement. For the record, I prefer the terse style :) — Deckiller 13:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Willow. I actually made this same comment, except less concisely stated, in the peer review section. The prose of this article is terrible in some parts. What happened to explaining things along the way? We're an encyclopedia, which means that we must attempt to educate our audience by catering them with information. Simply stating the truth along with a reference and then running away is not the right way to go about this. References are only used for providing a reliable source of the claims made in the article, but currently most of them are used as though they're external links. What this article needs at this moment is a thorough copyediting process that will bring the fun of reading back into it. I think that perhaps rewriting the article from a new basis might be a bit extreme, since the current order of headers would likely not be changed very much. But whatever we do, we must do something. —msikma (user, talk) 07:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make some changes, be bold, and see how people receive it. No harm done. ~ Rollo44 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One assessment and one suggestion

message: Shouldn't we be using the cite templates in this article? It gives the references more semantic information, and standardizes them. Any objections to changing the citation format? CloudNine 13:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're used in some cases, but mostly (where  would be used) they aren't. I think people have left it the way it is because it's simpler and because there are so many of them that it would take forever to change. But feel free to change them if you wish – Qxz 16:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too strongly agree with using  for references. MediaWiki's syntax is limited, and templates like that were made specifically to address such limitations. Plus, they offer a consistent interface for the references as well. It shouldn't be too difficult to convert them on a mass scale. I'll see if I can write a converter to do it for me for at least most of them. —msikma (user, talk) 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format 

message: I don't know if there is already, but there should be an article on how Wikipedia is managed editorially. For instance, I don't know how one becomes an editor with certain powers, or how this authority has evolved over time. I know that there is a whole editorial world that many Wikipedia contributors know nothing about. I came to the Wikipedia article to see how this hierarchy is managed to find only general explanations. There must be a pyramidal hierarchy that we can elucidate and define. ~ Rollo44 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every user has the same status on the wiki. Being a sysop is just getting some extra tools and doing some housecleaning that only trusted users can do. ffm yes? 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, see WP:ADMIN#Trivial_matter. ffm yes? 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, you have to be relatively initiated to find out about that term sysop and go through the Wikipedia subpages. It doesn't appear at all in the Wikipedia article. ~ Rollo44 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sysop" doesn't actually mean anything; it is merely another word for "administrator", which is mentioned in the article. "Sysop" was the more common term in the early days of Wikipedia but has now been replaced by a less jargon-like word; "administrator" appears in the interface (by default the MediaWiki interface refers to administrators as "sysops" and it still does internally, but has now been customized) and on policy pages – Qxz 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is already there in the project namespace as WP:ADMIN and WP:CON. I do not see why that is hard to find. ffm yes? 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to be bold and make it. ffm yes? 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I would love to, but ugghhh... I'd have to learn all the ins and outs to create that article. And the deletionists and anti-eventualists would eat me alive if I did a half-asked job. But if no one else is up to it, I'll do it at some point. ~ Rollo44 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The details of Wikipedia's policies and procedures, including those related to administrative tasks, are insignificant outside of Wikipedia, and hence do not merit a separate article, or anything more than a brief reference in this one. As Firefoxman mentioned, we have project pages (those in the "Wikipedia:" namespace) that explain these things. While it is important that Wikipedia makes information about its own procedures easily accessible, it is equally important that it does it internally and not as part of the enyclopedia. Suggestions as to how the organization of project pages could be improved are welcome, though this discussion page is not the place for them; Wikipedia:Village pump would be a better starting point – Qxz 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial management and control of Wikipedia 

message: If the editors of Wikipedia are going to determine that webcomics are "Not Notable" with followings for individual webcomics number in the thousands, then I suppose that Wikipedia itself should then be classified as NOT NOTABLE.
72.84.62.114 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia recieves over twenty thousand page views per second. Assuming "followings" can be equated with the number of page views a website gets, Wikipedia is several orders magnitude more notable than the webcomics to which you refer. Page views, however, are not Wikipedia's metric of notability; rather, it is the ability to construct an article with reference to reliable, independent published sources. Wikipedia has been mentioned in many such sources; most webcomics have not. – Qxz 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I second that. Wikipedia is NOT NOTABLE thanks to the B.S. admin shielding their non neutral POV behind the wikipedia philosophy. 86.147.110.137 12:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read our notability criteria for websites. The relevant criterion here is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." A cursory glance at the References section of Wikipedia will demonstrate that this is indeed the case. The issue which you raise is irrelevant to notability, and indeed irrelevant to this article; if you have a genuine concern regarding Wikipedia's internal processes, please bring up the issue in a mature fashion on an appropriate project discussion page. This is not the correct place to discuss such issues. Thanks – Qxz 12:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Notable 

message: Where is the image for our logo? I have looked all over and have not found it. Thanks, Megalodon99  (Talk) 13:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is :Image:Wikipedia-logo-en.png (see also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos). El_C 13:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: is not /ˌwɪːkiːˈpiːdi.ə/ (with an /ɪ/ in the place of the first /i/) also acceptable/commonly used? I realise the original Hawaiian is /wiki/, but I think a more naturalised english pronunciation would use /ɪ/. --Krsont 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Wikipedia#So how do you pronounce Wikipedia? – Qxz 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: There used to be a graph of Wikipedia's growth on this page. A few months ago, it got out of date, and apparently it's been removed. I would really like to see it back. Any suggestions? 66.250.190.112 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it was impossible to update beyond a certain point due to software limitations. Maybe they'll fix it sometime. —msikma (user, talk) 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: Why would anyone vandalize a article about the site if there on it.Themasterofwiki 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because it's consistently one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia. CloudNine 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vadalsim 

message: I think its wrong that on the Swedish version of Wikipedia you can't say what you want to with out being blocked for let say 24 hours or so. And you be blocked for no appearent reason like if you tell that you dont agree on something toally silly the other person or someone else of that persons allies block you. 
There is something wrong with the wikipedia system it makes people powerhungry and people block each other just becuase they can. But i dont think their is a way to improve it because it has already fallen apart at least in the Swedish version. And i think the english wikipedia is heading towards the same situation, where all conversations is about "you are doing this, and you are doing that wrong " and so on.This should be a happy and fun place to be, but thats also the problem when people get even power over something as small as other people on a article writing page it goes out of hand.
matrix17, 19:18, 14 February 2007
:I don't think this is the correct venue to bring this topic up for discussion/debate. --Strangnet 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that an international thing? Is that the world where you were raised? I want to. End of story.--Creator face 55 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censur on Swedish wikipedia is very usuall

message: Is the Wikimedia Foundation running out of money? I ams seeing references to this on a number of sites, and I'm not sure whether to believe them at this point. Where would I go to find information on Wikimedia's financial situation? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthere (the chair of the WMF) made this post on the foundation-l mailing list, which is very informative about the situation. the wub "?!" 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am for text/links ads, with the option to disable them. It's needed for further development. Alexandre Koriakine 15:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running out of Money? 

message: HOW THE HECK DO I MAKE ONE OF THOSE MINI-WIKI'S ON THIS SITE!!!! when ever i try, it says "There is no wiki by that name. Would you like to create it?" i click, and it starts all over again, and it goes around like that! HELP ME!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xlr8 the Hedgehog (talk • contribs) 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't make "mini-wikis" here. Are you talking about Wikia? If so, you'll have to ask there for help; Wikia has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Thanks – Qxz 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, you're talking about editthis.info, which, again, has nothing to do with Wikipedia; we cannot help you here. Please request help at editthis.info. Thanks – Qxz 14:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know its not for here but... 

message: Has anyone ever mentioned that "criticism" sections tend to politicize every single goddamned issue on Wikipedia? Has anyone ever written anything about this?--Rotten 10:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to see (and rewrite) Criticism of Wikipedia – Qxz 14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" sections 

message: http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070217/tc_pcworld/129135 --216.164.24.232 08:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 10 visited sites. (9th) 

message: Since the Portmanteau article itself says that portmanteau is a "historical" term that "has been eliminated in modern linguistics," oughtn't this article use the modern term, Blend?  Seeing the P-word right there in the lead section of such a keystone article only adds to the portmandemic currently plaguing Wikipedia.  Fishal 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Portmandemic, nice :) It's true that WP is practically keeping the word alive by itself, but so long as it isn't actively confusing them it's nice to maintain consistency with, well, every other article on a blended word... Chris Cunningham 11:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portmanteaux, portmanteaux

message: Don't we need some fair use rationale for the images containing the logos. Without them, that's copyrighted content with no claim of fair use! Sure this is Wikipedia but...don't we need it anyway? --WikiSlasher 10:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're used for identification of the article subject, which is a pretty routine fair-use claim. Anyway, the Wikimedia Foundation is hardly going to complain to us that we're infringing their copyright by using the Wikipedia logo in our article, are they? – Qxz 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale 

message: These should stay. The editor who deleted them wrongly claimed the list of foreign language wikipedia articles was the same which of course it isnt, these are all wikipedia in English articles, SqueakBox 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it's better to give a link to the List of Wikipedias article (or indeed the category on the English Wikipedia). They're not the 'Wikipedia in English' articles (that's covered by English Wikipedia and the equivalent in other languages). I just don't think it's best to include a huge list of all Wikipedias in the main article. CloudNine 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to other wikipedia articles

message: Wikipedia is like an all you can eat buffet for the hungry mind.RSido 18:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia article, not Wikipedia itself. If you wish to discuss Wikipedia itself, you're in the wrong place – Qxz 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is like. . .  

message: Technically speaking, shouldn't (with the increasing elitism, increasing inaccuracy, increasing corruption of the admins, increasing refusal by educational institutions to accept references from Wikipedia) shouldn't Wikipedia be marked as non-notable? Self-congratulatory masturbation aside, I mean. 203.191.175.140 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those things either constitute or hinder an assertion of notability. The standard metric of notability is that the subject of the article has been the subject of an independent, non-trivial, reliable source such as a research paper, book, newspaper article, television news broadcast or the like. Wikipedia has been featured in hundreds if not thousands of these – Qxz 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, I'm not sure there's an increasing refusal of educational institutions to accept references from Wikipedia. Any higher-level academic institution worth its salt should have been discouraging citation of any encyclopedia for decades; Wikipedia shouldn't be permitted as a source in such cases – and this is neither here nor there, as this is not the purpose of the project – Qxz 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable 

message: Wikipedia is dead. --AnYoNe! 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have an account more than four days old, you can edit this article. It's not really that much to ask; new contributors can use those four days to learn what's what, editing less popular and controversial articles than the protected ones, and familiarizing themselves with editing. Trust me, if protection was removed from this article, the page history would consist almost entirely of vandalism and reversions of vandalism, making constructive work on the page almost impossible, and many people coming to view it would find it in a vandalized state. Protecting a page is not ideal, but it's far, far better than the alternative – Qxz 07:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See those padlocks all over the place? 

message: When it comes to esoteric details about items of POPULAR CULTURE, Britannica and Encarta cannot hold a flame to Wikipedia.  I don't know why this is not mentioned in this article.  Shall I be forced to put this in myself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paroswiki (talk • contribs).}
: No, because doing so would constitute original research, which we do not allow. If you can find a reliable source that backs up your claim, you can add it and cite that source – Qxz 07:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from [[User:Paroswiki|Paroswiki]] 

message: There was a 3-4 minute segment on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room today, It was on Wiki and politics, specifically the 08 Presidential Candidates. They discussed the inherent drawback of letting anyone edit, but explained that articles like these have many people (and Admins) 'guarding' them - and also explained that many of these articles do not let 'non accounts' edit. They showed a close up of the lock icon, and showed the pages of McCain, Romney, Obama, and maybe another. There might be a transcript. - FaAfA (yap) 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May deserve a mention in Criticism of Wikipedia if they actually aired any criticisms. If not, unless it's being used as a source for something, there's no need to include every bit of media attention in an article. We do, however, maintain project pages with details of media coverage – update Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio, if is hasn't already been updated – Qxz 09:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia featured on CNN today 

message: When attempting to edit this page, the page notes that editing is semi protected so only established users may edit. What is an established user? (I assume I am one since I can edit this page.) Gagueci 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy explains the concept of semi-protection. Basically, you have to be registered for at least four days. CloudNine 18:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? Can you point to the username you used and/or the edit in the edit history? I just tried the same thing myself and it didn't work – Qxz 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, some administrator decided to unprotect the page on March 3rd. This, as you might imagine, led to rather a lot of vandalism and it was re-protected soon afterward. Not sure why they did that – Qxz 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Established User 

message: This articles gives a good overview, but it should link to more information. I can't find information of article types, e.g. those "Wikipedia:Something"-articles or the syntax of this wikipedia markup language. Could someone add a link to a page where you can get detailed informations? Thank you. 130.83.72.81 15:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing about this article is that it's an article, and as such should be redistributable and make sense outside the context of this particular website, like all the other articles. Therefore, linking to the "project" pages (those that start with "Wikipedia:") has to be avoided. The best places to go to find such information are Wikipedia:Contents, which serves as an index of all Wikipedia project pages, and Wikipedia:About, which is basically the "internal" equivalent to this article, which presents things from Wikipedia's viewpoint and has plenty of project page links. (Doing so in this article would violate the neutral point of view) – Qxz 05:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More detailed information? 

message: Looks like Wikipedia got an award in Italy! Anyone know anything about this? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't hear anything. I guess we should get someone who speaks Italian to ask at the Italian Wikipedia – Qxz 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the 2005's "premio WWW" ("WWW award", in english) organized by the italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore. The italian wikicommunity commented the event on this page. Sadly, in the 2006 edition, the italian wikipedia didn't win even in its category (Education & Jobs) --Banus 12:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, shame. Proabably deserves a one-line mention under "Awards", though – Qxz 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An award? 

message: Google search I never realized Wikipedia had such bad press, until I stumbled on these search results. Anyone who wants to write about "Will Wikipedia Run Out of Money and Disappear", based on these search results is welcomed too. Travb (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just some newsreports trieng to generate hype (and thus sell papers). ffm yes? 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good lord the bad press about Wikipedia

message: I saw Wikipedia's Test Wiki at http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. What is it, and can I put a link to it from the Wikipedia article?
Wikiman232 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the wiki where changes to the wikimedia code go live on first, so as to make sure it does not crash the main wiki. ffm yes? 00:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's only used by the MediaWiki developers to test out code; it's not something the average contributor uses or is even aware of. Probably not important enough to need mentioning in this article – Qxz 16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Test Wiki

message: *sigh* This article cites mostly its own webpage as sources which does not qualify for notability under wikipedias own notability guidelines. I strongly suggest a review of notability policy as it is a hindrance especially to upstarting articles.
If such review does not take place I suggest policy be enforced on all articles and not as selectively as currently. Wikipedia used to be free of prejudice however some categories especially are being hindered entirely from expanding, whereas other types of areas have vast arrays of articles that would never meet notability guidelines as stands, yet are allowed to exist.
::How would you propose to enforcce policy on all 1.6 million articles? SqueakBox 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability and attribution guidelines only state that there should be an independent source for notability, and a source for the facts stated in an article. It doesn't specify how many independent sources there should be, or what proportion of the total number of sources should be independent – one independent, reliable source that demonstrates non-trivial coverage of the article's subject in the media is fine. This article clearly has that, so easily meets the project's notability guidelines. Many of the sources cited are internal project pages because many of the points that need citation are simple facts and figures that are best illustrated by direct reference to the statistics pages, or claims that Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation make – in which case the citations point to the primary sources for those claims. There are clearly dozens of media sources on top of these – in fact, the number was trimmed down considerably to avoid an excessively long "External links" section, and could easily be far higher. Many more such references can be found in the articles that have been split off from this one, especially Criticism of Wikipedia. Which particular categories of articles did you have in mind anyway? – Qxz 05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: glaringly obvious: this article should not exist.
-**********@******.*** (email removed by ffm yes?)
:Why? ffm yes? 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  absurdity at it's most absurd. 

message: I see we have an audio pronunciation of wikipedia. Do we have a source that it is pronounced correctly? If not perhaps the pronunciation is wrong in which case it should be removed, SqueakBox 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "correct" pronounciation. Wikipedia is a written work, after all, and so unlike most words it hasn't come into being through the evolution of spoken language. I guess technically we should pronounce it the way Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger do, since they thought of it, but provided the pronounciation is a plausible one and one in common use (which it is) I don't think it matters – Qxz 12:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio

message: Why in the world would you need a wikipedia page for wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearflip (talk • contribs) 07:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same reason as the need for an article on any other subject – to inform readers about that subject. Someone visiting Wikipedia probably knows it's a free encyclopedia, but I doubt there are many people – even established contributors – who know everything mentioned in the article. Also, because Wikipedia is free content, it can be (and has been) redistributed freely (provided certain terms and conditions are met). Users of these redistributed versions may never have used Wikipedia the website, and (since there are plans to release print and DVD versions of the encyclopedia) may not have Internet access or even a computer – Qxz 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a question 

message: How was the wikipedia logo originally made? Was it an image? A 3d model? If so, is there a copy of it somewhere?
: It's just an image. The logo was designed by a contributor – specifically User:Nohat, based on a concept by User:Paul Stansifer. There's a larger version of it here – Qxz 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: The third paragraph gives only brief information regarding the critics of wikipedia. If this page is to exist it should no doubt give a full range of problems cited by critics in the interest of balance. If wikipedia does not do this then we can conclude that the article is biased and should be removed anyway. The short section given is also appears to be defensive and should be expanded to a greater degree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bswartz (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections of this article are deliberately kept reasonably short to prevent the article becoming overly long, and more detailed information is split off into separate articles, which are clearly linked from the top of the relevant sections. The article you are looking for in this case is Criticism of Wikipedia, which expands upon the issues that are summarized in this article – Qxz 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility 

message: What version of Mediawiki is Wikipedia using? Should this be added to the article? 70.104.16.217 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia (and the other Wikimedia sites) always use the latest stable "alpha" developement version of MediaWiki; changes to the code generally go live a few days after they are committed. Currently Wikipedia is running version , but the revision number changes daily, the version number changes quarterly as new release versions of MediaWiki are produced, and it's always an 'alpha' version. Hence specifying the version isn't particularly useful, as it changes so often – Qxz 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, stable "alpha". Nice oxymoron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.86.79 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's unusual to see 'alpha' code in production, but that's exactly what happens. There are advantages to this, of course – new features that are urgently needed on Wikipedia can be rushed in in a couple of weeks, as happened recently with 'cascading protection'. In fact, Wikipedia is running a stable alpha – oxymoron or not; the software seems pretty stable to me, short of errors thrown up when the servers get overloaded with requests, problems are few and far between – Qxz 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mediawiki

message: should some1 put wikipedia in different languages......i thought it'd be useful and interesting ksmith3 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: m:List of Wikipedias – Qxz 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  languages