Wikipedia talk:About/Archive 1

message: how do i add on a picture to wikipedia? im not very sureBe happy 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I've moved the following link out of the article. I don't think this is similar enough to be listed in the 'similar projects' section. If we did that, we'd be listing everything that is in the list of encyclopedias. Angela. 06:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed link

message: I suggest that someone edits the section "Quality of Information" under "Summary of Strengths ..." as the link to the Boston Herald article no longer seems to work.  The Boston Herald site offers only the opening couple of sentences from the article and states that the article has been archived. The link available on the site to retrieve the article from their archive fails to do so!  Chris (new reader) 12:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to remove

message: Quoting from the article page:
The current incarnation of Wikipedia was begun on January 15, 2001 by founders Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, and a few enthusiastic English-language collaborators.
What is meant by "The current incarnation"? Were there previous incarnations? If so, I see no indication of it on History of Wikipedia.  Seems to be unnecessarily confusing, if not outright wrong. I'm going to be bold and change it. -Rholton 19:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: To reopen the suggestion in the above section. Should this page be protected? The edit history is an extensive list of anonymous vandalism. I have the page on my Watchlist, and it's active almost every day. Furthermore, the page is linked to at the bottom of every page; other high-traffic pages, such as Wikipedia:Copyrights are protected; I see no reason for this one to be excluded. --Slowking Man 06:42, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Vandalism of the copyright and disclaimer pages have legal consequences, not so for the about page. If they don't vandalise this page they'll vandalise something else, all in all I'd prefer it if they vandalised this which will be reverted within minutes, if not seconds. Also, since this is one of the first pages people interested in wikipedia see, I think it'd be nice if it was an example of "we don't need to disable editing to have good results", which is what wikipedia is based on after all. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 06:48, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
::Basically agree with fvw, but I reckon it might be appropriate to place a comment at the very top of the document reminding people not to vandalise.  It probably wouldn't stop many, but it might make a difference.  Smoddy | ειπετε 15:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fvw's comment is true, but I think the reason for protecting Wikipedia:Copyrights and the Main page, among other pages, is more due to traffic than legal reasons. My opinion is that it's bad form to have a page vandalized so often when it's linked to from every other page. I don't want curious people to lose faith in Wikipedia when they click on the "About Wikipedia" link and see "LOL JOSH IS GAY!!!" as the first sentence. --Slowking Man 03:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-sysop, I can say that I nevertheless support protecting this page.  I have to agree with Slowking Mans statement that this page is too often vandalised, and when people see this vandalism on our About-page it will definitely influence their opinion of the wiki concept in an unfavourable direction.  →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:36, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
To bring this up again: I think this page should be protected. As a new editor but longtime user of the site, the first thing I saw on the page was "im hacking u suckers". There is a little part of me that dies with every protected page, but new users on high-traffic pages shouldn't get that or something equally as inane. I didn't expect that page to be unprotected, since it is not an article. I think it really does belong to the framework of the site, being linked to from every (is it?) page. Just my $0.02.
As a non sysop, I'm also for protecting this page.   Like my friend above, I didn't expect this page to be unprotected. Cliffb 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting this page part deux 

message: A more holistic discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. Interested editors may wish to add their opinions there. Niteowlneils 16:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be interesting --Darrendeng 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia introductory pages

message: I researched the last 500 edits, between now and February, and discovered a number of remarkable statistics:
:Edits not involving vandalism or reversion: 20</b>
::Minor edits (inserting/deleting words, adding punctuation): 11
::Major edits (all others, such as moving material to other pages): 9
:::Major edits made by admins: 4
:::Major edits made by non admins: 5
:::#Elwikipedista: add link to ro.
:::#Elwikipedista: add link to ca.
:::#CatherineMunro: update stats
:::#Beland: tidy up help
:::#anonymous: add pt.
:Vandalism/reversion: 480
In short 96% of this page's history consists of vandalism and reverts.  Three of the major edits made by non-admins were to add language links, one was to update size and usage statistics, and the fifth was to tweak a category.  This page is hardly being edited at all.
I don't think that more restrictive editing methods, such as submitting a new version for review on another page, is too high a price to pay.  After all, this is linked to from every page in the entire site. Furthermore, many other websites that praise wikipedia may include links here rather than/as well as to the main page.  What will people think when they hear all about how great wikipedia is, and then follow the link and see '[expletive] [genital]</b>'?  It will shatter their confidence, and they'll keep using lokipedias. I'd hate to see that happen just so we can keep editing this page (literally!) three times a month. →Iñgōlemo← talk 06:48, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
:This article is one of the first ones a newbie will find, and thus one of the prime targets to do editing experiments, from adding a "test" up to genital or toilet humor. But this page is also on the watchlist of many people, and thus those editing experiments get reverted quickly. If a newbie does his experiments on a random page, the chances they will stay unnoticed for a long period of time are much better. Thus having this page like a honeypot is IMHO no problem. andy 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is a good thing. Have changed section title to match discussion topic--BozMo|talk 14:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this page is on enough watch-lists. There have been cases in which it has been vandalized by more than one person at once, making reversion difficult. --Ixfd64 01:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This edit is an example of what I am talking about. It stayed for almost an entire hour before I reverted it. --Ixfd64 03:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting this page part 3

message: There has been considerable discussion about the negative publicity and deteriorating reputation of Wikipedia in some reputable quarters. Part of this (see WP:VP) has been blamed upon this page failing to be clear as to an introduction to Wikipedia for newcomers, and how to use and rely upon it: 
:Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(policy)#There_are_reasons_for_the_slow_collapse_of_Wikipedia's_reputation
user:Ingoolemo has commented in a different context above that:
:In short 96% of this page's history consists of vandalism and reverts. Three of the major edits made by non-admins were to add language links, one was to update size and usage statistics, and the fifth was to tweak a category. This page is hardly being edited at all.
I am aware that full reworking of major pages is unusual and often reverted. In this case I have thought hard and believe from the consensus of debate, it's probably warranted and necessary. I've restructured it to be more beneficial to a newcomer reader in explaining the basics, as follows:
:* A brief introduction/welcome message
:* Making best use of Wikipedia, including how to use it and disclaimers
:* Contributing, including pointers to major editing policies
:* Background, including history, stats, mediawiki and friends
:* Feedback and questions, including FAQ and how feedback works in wikipedia
:* Sister projects and versions
Please bring discussion here or improve the drafted version, rather than ignore the issue.
FT2 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworking of ABOUT page

message: ===About Wikipedia===
You can help build Wikipedia into a better encyclopedia and wiki community by editing and creating new articles. If you create an account, you can track your changes and more.
See Help for assistance or to ask a question. For news about the site, you can read, and write for, the Wikipedia Signpost or see what's going on.  The Village pump has a variety of discussions about operations, policies, technical issues, and the concerns of other Wikipedians.
Are you a new Wikipedian looking for help? Come along to the Wikipedia Boot Camp for some friendly help.
===Community information===
About Wikipedia ·
About Wikimedia ·
Wikipedians ·
Category-based access to pages about Wikipedia ·
Administrators ·
Babel ·
Donations ·
Culture ·
Humor ·
Games
===News===
Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly WP News
Wikipedia in the media ·
Goings-on · 
Village pump (for news or updates that need discussion) ·
Announcements ·
Press releases ·
Stats ·
Milestones
===Watchlists===
Public watchlists ·
Regional notice boards
===Featured content===
Featured articles ·
Featured pictures ·
Featured lists ·
Featured portals
===Surveys===
Wikipedia:Current surveys (for current polls or surveys)
The About Wikipedia was the level 2 heading for the whole section.  --Go for it! 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumping this stuff here from Community Portal, for potential inclusion 

message: Wikipedia:Current surveys (for current polls or surveys)
The About Wikipedia was the level 2 heading for the whole section.  --Go for it! 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surveys

message: What is the correct action to take if one believes that a page has been taken over by a clique with a common non NPOV who are effectively enforcing that view to the exclusion of all others ? Springald 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up dispute resolution. Basically, discuss, then seek comments, then seek mediation, and make sure all the way that you don't fall into the trap of returning poor conduct by other poor conduct or POV by other POV, even if accused of it. FT2 (Talk) 20:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Any bystanders who come across this and would like more information, please see the Wiki is a great concept but . . . section above, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819 for further background. 75.214.202.6 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: Quick reply ... this version gets special note because it's basically, the universal version for all non-english speakers worldwide. There is a specialized german, french, swahili, russian, spanish... version, but for general "non english speakers" (especially if no wiki is available in their tongue), often the simple english is a good starting point. As such its a universal version in the sense that English, German, french etc are not, and is specially noted since users may look up their own language but won't otherwise spot it. FT2 (Talk) 20:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all languages have a wikipedia (although a large number do), and many countries where English is a second language, it is not obvious that a simple english version exists. It is therefore of above average use to point it out because in some senses, Simple English is the closest that can be got to a universal version for non-English speakers, over and above any individual language, even if presently small, but will almost certainly go un-noticed by those it can benefit if not given special mention. FT2 (Talk) 16:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple English

message: I suppose this is the best place to ask, but how would one cite wikipedia as a source?  It doesn't fit squarely into any of the MLA's categories, so I'm currently just using the CD-Rom encyclopedia format, replacing CDROM with www.wikipedia.com, and hoping for the best.  As far as I know, a purely digital encyclopedia is a unique instance which has not yet been addressed by the MLA format designers.  Anyone know more about it?Eoseth 07:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres an article on it:  Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Hope that helps! FT2 (Talk) 16:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How would one cite Wikipedia

message: most people when they first hear of wikipedia have these reservations:
#written by everyone = loads of losers writing rubbish (misinformation)
#written by everyone = ridiculously biased (pov)
#written by everyone = written like crap (ie bad style)
and i see these points addressed nowhere on the main overview pages. thing is, wikipedia has very strict and good policies:
#sources must be verifiable and cited
#articles must be NPOV (neutral)
#there is a strong manual of style (WP:MOS)
i would like to see the above three points mentioned prominently in the lead to show the people with a bad image of wikipedia that we do our utmost to be of "traditional quality or better".-- Alfakim --  talk  15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page needs small policy addition 

message: A few hours ago, I listed some minor corrections to be made, in great detail, because the page was editable by admins only and I didn't know that the protection would ever change. Now I can fix it myself, so I did so and deleted my description here. Art LaPella 05:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling etc. 

message: Now, I realize how important it is to keep "personal bios" and the like off wikipedia, but why do people crack down so hard on topics like webcomics, viral videos, flash cartoons, and other internet memes?
From what I can see, every time someone posts an article about one of these topics, a neverending deletion battle starts.
Wikipedia simply questions the relevance of these issues to the rest of the world. What is and isn't important is a gray area for the admin as well as those of us who use wiki, but it's something you'll have to live with. If you have an issue you want to talk about, but fear it might get deleted, complete the article as well as you can, and make a note that some work might need to be done on the talk page. Work together with other people who might know something about your topic that they can add to your page. There are all sorts of ways to give useless information meaning. --TransNique 23:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia hates the internet? 

message: I shortened the introduction, making it brief enough to fit in a Portal.  My version of the introduction is a summary, echoing the article itself.  The cross reference I included is the exact name of the article it goes to, which is my understanding of the way q.v.s are supposed to be.  When I was doing a minor edit, there was a notice stating the article is too long.  I personally think "see also"  notices should be at the end of the article, to not overwhelm the  reader. Here is the permanent link to my edit  
.--Chuck Marean 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   introduction 

message: In this very long sentence: "These include automatic sections and subsections, automatic references and cross-references, image and table inclusion, indented and listed text, links ISBNs and math, as well as usual formatting elements and most world alphabets and common symbols," there seems to be a breakdown in the vicinity of "...listed text, links ISBNs and math, ..."
When you fix it, you might want to make the sentence shorter, or use bullet points, or ????. Lou Sander 23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information, although this usually ceases to be as significant a problem as articles mature. Inappropriate edits are often noticed and corrected within a relatively short time on most articles 
Need to put a "." at end of sentence.
:Fixed. I've also fixed the other punctuation error in the first reference. Graham87 07:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation edit

message: Under "Summary of strengths, weaknesses and article quality in Wikipedia", in subsection "Quality of information (Reliability of Wikipedia, Researching with Wikipedia)", the statement "Studies suggest that Wikipedia is broadly as reliable as Encyclopedia Brittanica, with similar error rates on established articles for both major and minor omissions and errors" is a weasel term - what studies were these? No reference is given, unless superscript [1] at the end of the paragraph is meant to serve this purpose. The link of superscript [1] refers back to this article, as far as I can see - a circular reference?
Under the "Disclaimer" section:
"Reports have sometimes cited..." This is yet another weasel term - what reports? This article/page should be particularly well written, as not to serve as a bad example - note the possible irony: a badly written wikipedia article claiming that wikipedia contains well written articles...
Here it is:  it was done by IBM some time ago. I'll add it in now.--Planetary 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it this one:   as well? --BozMo talk 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, looks like it. --Planetary 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel terms 

message: Just wanted to say hi before i write is this where you can get answers i have a lot of questions please let me know.
Vickie
:For answers about using Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Help desk.  For answers about factual questions see Wikipedia:Reference desk.  Please see also Wikipedia:Very Frequently Asked Questions.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 04:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: I just wanted to ask, 
how can we be sure as readers that the articles and everything in wikipedia are trustworthy?? does someone checks that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.203.197.98 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but the one who added that citation did. And editors periodicly check citations to make sure they are valid. Anyway, most cited information is as valid as the source. ffm yes? 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  validy 

message: 161.142.221.169 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, this page isn't really the place for such questions. You may be able to get an answer at the reference desk. Thanks – Qxz 09:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Prizes of 2007 Asean Football Championship 

message: Should this statement be modified? "Some more boring, academic topics may not be covered as well on Wikipedia, while pop culture topics are covered in great depth." ... would seem to be POV.  –  Fred 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've removed the word "boring". Graham87 03:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boring? 

message: I'm going to change "Wikipedia is completely up-to-date" to "Wikipedia can be constantly updated", considering the size of :Category:1911_Britannica_articles_needing_updates, :Category:Articles_with_dead_external_links and the mother of all of them, :Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating.  We certainly arn't "completely up-to-date"!  Otherwise, nice writing. 75.214.202.6 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it appears this is semi-protected, so I can't do it till I log into my account, so if anyone else would like to make the change... 75.214.202.6 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done – Qxz 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "completely up-to-date"?  

message: Owing to the fact that I did not know where else to turn to, I must ask this question:
How do I delete an inactive or repeated page?
--KnowledgeLord 09:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you created a page yourself, nobody else has edited it and you want it deleted, add  to the top of it. If you want a page in your userspace deleted, add  to it – you can do this regardless of whether anyone else has edited the page. If you find there are two pages about the same subject, merge the information from one into the other, and leave a redirect behind; no deletion is required. Articles shouldn't be deleted just because they are inactive; if you think an article should be deleted for some other reason, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for other sorts of pages – Qxz 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: There is a section in this article that says Encyclopedia Britanica. As this is unable to be corrected by an ordinary person, I am requesting this be fixed to say Encyclopedia Britannica, as that is the correct way of spelling it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.236.60 (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Qxz 11:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia Brittannica 

message: A discussion on pronunciation is going on here 205.228.73.12 10:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was changed in Wikipedia, please update this WP:About accordingly. 83.67.217.254 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. ffm yes? 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation