Talk:History of Wikipedia/Archive 1

message: I request semi-protection for this article. Too many people visit it and vandalism occurs often and this page shouldn't be vandalised more so than other pages. Zuracech lordum 09:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Unfortunately, there is an existing timeline already in Meta [meta:Wikipedia_timeline]. There, I've been focusing on improving the pre-2002 items, trying to make sure there is a consistent formatting, and every entry has a specific date and reference. It appears that the time line on this page has had more care since 2002. I think would make a lot of sense to somehow consolidate these two pages so that one as a prose history, as well as a specific timeline. Actually, I am not that fond of the timeline being in Meta since many of the links that need to be 'en:' qualified. - Reagle 15:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people and Wikipedia:Historic debates for substantial overlap. - BanyanTree 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: I actually don't see the need for the paragraph that begins "In March 2002" if for no other reason than it seems out of place with the rest of the material. - Hephaestos 19:20 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
: well that simplifies things. Martin 20:17 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Wikiquote and wikibooks are not, to date, important enough for a wikipedia article, in my opinion. Martin 21:56, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: Would we really need an article about Wikipedia Day? Is it encyclopedic? Fredrik | talk 05:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day 

message: Do we really have to list every article count milestone ever made in the english wikipedia? It's just banal trivia for anyone but the most wiki-obsessed. I can understand maybe leaving the 100,000 and 500,000 milestones, but let's get rid of the rest of them. Kaldari 22:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article count milestones 

message: :Around October 15, 2003, the current Wikipedia logo was installed. The logo concept was selected by a voting process, which was followed by a revision process to select the best variant. The final selection was created by David Friedland based on a logo design and concept created by Paul Stansifer.
Could we have a wikilink to that historical vote? - RoyBoy 800 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image selection vote 

message: Please take a look at Wikipedia:2003, Wikipedia:2004 from :Category: Wikipedia years. Wikipedia as community deserves to keep track of its own history, of events which may be not very encyclopedic in the world scale, but of interest to wikipedians. 
This may help declutter this, History of Wikipedia, article, in particular, to address the concern posted above, in #Article count milestones, while retaining the info.  
I understand that today, of only 5 years of history, the "calendar" may seem redundant, but I seriously hope   for wikipedia to live and grow. 
Potential additions: 
*start dates of non-english wikis, 
*new policies introduced, 
*dates of board of directors elections, 
etc. mikka (t) 20:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia calendar 

message: This article seems remarkably light on the part of Wikipedia's history in which its fundamental principles and habits were established--its first year.  Why is that? --Larry Sanger 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like you, I'm not going to touch this article. I "left" Wikipedia before you did, and my editing could be construed as controversial. However, I think the current article's main problem is that it is a "chronicle" (as poets would write for their kings) and not history writing. This is a list of events tracked by the people who experienced them, it would be "original research" (not allowed here!) if only it were "research". Any proper "history of X" article should probably start with a section on historiography (who has written history about this? which conflicting theories are there about this history? Marx vs Adam Smith? Larry Sanger vs Jimbo vs that public toilet guy?). This criticism can be made of many "History of X" articles in Wikipedia, and the "History of Wikipedia" will probably be researched a lot later than the "History of the Internet" or the "History of computers", all of which are quite poor. I think you (and others) should go and do the history research, and publish somewhere where it matters. Then others might be able to reference your work in a future version of this Wikipedia article. --LA2 00:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some omitted history 

message: Should this class-action suit be mentioned in the article?  It's linked at the bottom of Jimmy Wales.  --zenohockey 07:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class action 

message: have you a source to write "However, some of the Wikipedia articles were found poorly organized and confusing."  All what I have read was something such as "both have mistakes and organized confusions" (about the 50 articles look by Nature). If you talk about "some of the Wikipedia articles" out of this 50, please correct your sentence. Yug (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  With [[user:Dmytro]] : 

message: When is this projected and how will it be marked? It is a very notable achievement in the development of the web. Perhaps a 'plaque' on the 1000000th article?[[Btljs 13:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea that when 1,000,000 is reached, creation of new articles be blocked for a month while Wikipedia does nothing but work on improvement of existing articles. --JWSchmidt 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This never happened, it looks like.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One millionth English article 

message: Dates on which administrators could edit these from Wikipedia:Administrators. --JWSchmidt 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki:Monobook.css and MediaWiki namespace editing 

message: I dare not edit this page ;-) so could someone please put up a link to User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia?  TIA. --Larry Sanger 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Larry. We usually do not link to anything outside the main namespace from articles. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Larry, careful now, Jimbo could just erase u from wikipedia, he calls the shots here, ultimately. The article already says you are cofounder, and most reasonable people dont think Jimbo was sole founder. Jörg Vogt 10:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link please 

message: Hundreds of thousands of contributors.  Over 100k logged in with at least 10 edits.  +sj + 23:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  #s 

message: It'd be interesting to find the first instance of the name "Wikipedia". I found this response from Larry Sanger to his own thread on nupedia-l (!) called "Let's make a wiki". Could anyone confirm whether this is it? Cormaggio @ 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that link should be  - the previous link is to the beginning of the thread. Cormaggio @ 20:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name "Wikipedia" 

message: When the self-references were removed, some links with nicer look-like names were changed to a not-as-good naming style -- the page you end up on.  Shouldn't the better names return?  I ask since I don't feel like it right now.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The removal of self-references (wikilinking to non-main namespace pages) 

message: Does anyone know when and how the slogan "The free encyclopedia" began to be used? Who suggested it? Was there ever a discussion or a vote? Or was it just self-evident?
I looked at the "nostagia Wikipedias" listed at the bottom of the article, and they don't have the slogan. On the other hand, look here to see "The Free Encyclopedia Project" used quite early by Richard Stallman.
My own hunch: This was just so self-evident that it began to be used at some point early on, and then when it was coded to appear at the top of each page it began universally recognized and accepted.
Does anyone else have additional ideas or information? Dovi 17:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The free encyclopedia" - trivia question 

message: show me 10 articles with ® used to designate trademarks and you'll have a better case, reverting... JoeSmack Talk 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ® type things 

message: I have upgraded all external links to <ref> tags so that we can see all of these external links together and ask ourselves if they are appropriate and scholarly. -- 75.24.111.205 11:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  review all external links 

message: I'd like to ask a (perhaps) simple question: is Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) only censored (blocked) in PRC? --Fitzwilliam 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current censorship of Wikipedia in the world 

message: This diff is curious (and, while true, I've reverted it for the moment). The 15th of January is commonly known as "Wikipedia day" - this is when (as the article said) Wikipedia was formally founded. Further information and context can be added, but this date needs to be recognised. Just a thought, but if a mini-timeline could be created on the first days of Wikipedia, that would be a better substitute for removing the date entirely. Cormaggio @ 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  15th January 

message: WikiWikiWeb:WikiPedia here? 
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham
(see also: WikiWikiWeb, Wiki, Ward Cunningham, Jimbo Wales
-- Kim Bruning 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First inkling of a WikiPedia ? 

message: :I reverted a set of edits made on August 3 by someone editing from IP 75.26.2.210. This address is similar to others that have been used by a banned editor who has been very active on Wikipedia lately. We need a mini-project to find reliable sources for the history of Wikipedia and then this article needs to cite those sources. Since Wikipedia should always "look outward", it might be best to move this article to a different wiki. --JWSchmidt 05:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by possible banned editor and other vandalisers 

message: The one-millionth article is linked from the article.  What's article #1,500,000?  --zenohockey 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kanab Ambersnail. Pepsidrinka 13:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,500,000th article 

message: 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:
* Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2002
* Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2003
* Wikipedia:Press releases/February 2004
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 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The facts according to Wikipedia press releases and page histories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links of interest 

message: I was a member of the core group of editors back in 2001 - there were only about 30 of us. I arrived in early Sept.
Frankly - to assert that Larry was not a co-founder of the Pedia is patently absurd. Jimbo was the driving force behind the Internet-based encyclopedia concept, which became Nupedia. Larry proposed and convinced Jimbo that a wiki-based concept was worthwhile. 
Larry remains (in my opinion) the single most important individual in the history of the actual Wikipedia, and his structural and philosophical influence remains apparent to this day. (FWIW, IMHO the second most important individual is Daniel Meyer whose name is completely absent from this history.) Jimbo is certainly up there, but from personal experience of what actually transpired in the micro and macro evolution of  the site, this is how I see it.
Myabe one day I'll write my own verion of events. Manning 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That's how I see it too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: oh actually you might be right, according to wikipedia's 2001 website . Jörg Vogt 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was I really there? That's easily verified by examining the archived version. I even created the Wikiproject concept Manning 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those of us who were there... 

message: This article is not too good a resource, it's missing some vital facts. When did Wikipedia switch from usemod to phase 2 to phase 3? What else happened in 2006?(come on, I know at least a few thigs did, with the election and all) -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 16:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. A lot of things are missing from the 2006 section, and I'm not sure the sections are arranged as nicely as they could be anyway. I've stuck a to-do list at the top of the page, and I'll work on the things in it at some point – Qxz 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added brief details of the Phase I/II/III transitions, based on information in Wikipedia – Qxz 10:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is pretty bad... 

message: Was looking at the german version of this article and it seemed that the way it started out is a lot better than ours, or at least contains more info. See here. Unfortunately I'm next to useless at reading german (even though my family comes from germany... drat!), so can't see exactly how much better it is or easily add parts in from there. But am posting here in the hopes a german reader could? Mathmo Talk 13:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the german version of most things is better. Normally I would volunteer, but I am having computer problems at the momentJörg Vogt 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Version 

message: is claimed (in it's article) to have been one of Wikipedia's main competitors as an open access encyclopedia between 2000 and 2003. Is That true? Would it fit in the article? -- 172.158.230.125 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Xrefer]] 

message: Hi. There was a fundraiser in late 2006 or early 2007, I'm not sure when exactly. it raised over a million dolars US for the foundation. Other fundraisers are mentioned, why not this one? Should it be added? Please respond. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 fundraiser 

message: I've raised this before, but it's worth raising again. As I've said, I would rate Larry Sanger as the single most important person in the history of the 'pedia. 
However, the second most important person is (in my opinion) Daniel Meyer, also known as Maveric149. Why his name is missing from this article eludes me completely. Daniel was the leader of the "second wave" of editors who arrived early in 2002, and his handiwork is evident in almost every aspect of the current 'pedia's architecture. Daniel effectively ran the entire site for nearly a year after Larry's exit. Those of us who were here then can vouch for that. Manning 04:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not defy Jimbo. Nothing good will come of it. Its surprising how many people try and pull down the great man, he deserves the credit, Plus he could delete any one of us out of existence you know.Jörg Vogt 10:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to "pull Jimbo" down. Jimbo was certainly crucial to Wikipedia - he provided the money and the hardware. But he was really not involved in the 'pedia's day-to-day development for the first two years. My own involvement diminished in mid 2002 and has remained 'infrequent' since that time, but I know what went on before that, as I was heavily involved (a fact easily verified by checking the archived versions). Larry was the chief driving figure prior to February 2002. After that, Daniel Meyer became the chief driving force (without ever being formally appointed to the role I might add). Manning 01:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His name is spelled Mayer. Note the Dec 2006 entry "In late February 2004 a coordinated new look for the Main Page appeared. On February 25, the listing of important overview articles, was replaced by a single link to Template:WikipediaTOC. Hand-chosen entries for the Daily Featured Article, Anniversaries, In the News, and Did You Know rounded out the new look. On February 26, 2004, User:maveric149 (Daniel Mayer) implemented the first entries of an automated archive for the Selected anniversaries which appear on the Main Page. This feature updates daily on the Main Page of the English Wikipedia." I happen to know this because I assisted mav on an anonymous basis in the early days of Selected Anniversaries; mav is the one who encouraged me to get a username. --Ancheta Wis 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Meyer 

message: hey all, i was doing a project on wikipedia recently and in the process i came across somethin i thought i should bring to your attention
unless nature.com messed up it's page i think our page is wrong
i added the totals up in excel and the totals are different
instead of 123/162 for brittanica/wiki respectively i came to the totals of 121/157 for britt/wiki respectively along with the average per page, wiht the posted being  2.92/3.86 per page (brit/wiki) compaired to the calculated 2.95/3.82(brit/wiki) per article that i calculated
let me kno if this is all confusin or what not and i'll try 2 better explain it... peace:)Ancientanubis, talk 04:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature study 

message: Shouldn't the name be [The] history of wikipedia, because ther is just the one and only. Peacekeeper II 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conv. 

message: I've restructured the article and transferred existing information. Hopefully people'll like it.
The article as it existed was mostly a few sections on specific themes, pluus a list of "things that happened". As a pure list, there was little cohesion, it was hard to get a sense of development in any given area, and left another few years it would just be a stack of unconnected miscellany  bordering on breaching WP:NOT.
What I've done is this:
# Founding of Wikipedia is in one section. Before it was in two sections, the concept origins being at the bottom of the article, the rest at the top.
# Added "organization" as a section in the overview.
# Summaries of main changes in each year in one short section
# Detailed changes grouped by theme, so that activity and growth in any given area (size, foundation activities etc) can be easily followed.
# 3 significant missing items added -- the policy creations of late 2005 were all in the wake of Brandt and Seigenthaler, so this is noted; the creation of WP:BLP was also in response but omitted; and the use of Wikipedia as a source for the F1 trademark case was overlooked.
# Specific incidents are given a section to themselves
# Images are given a gallery "Wikipedia history in images", which adds impact and a resource, whilst ensuring they don't cause the rest of the page to comprise long thin columns.
I haven't actually changed the bulleted points from the original, except when information was missing (above), and so there is still some stuff to do:
# Add "notable people" - left as placeholder as I don't know enough to add this.
# Probably heavily brevify the incidents sections, to a short paragraph each, since each of these are well documented in their own articles.
# Add missing info re 2000 and 2001 
# Trim down long lists and summarize in prose form. Much of this doesn't need precise dates, or bullet format. Normal textual format as per most articles might be better for some parts. But I haven't touched this so far, just left it "as it was".
# Assorted other cleanup
Hope it gets a thumbs up! 
FT2 (Talk | email) 18:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactor of page 

message: It seems clear to me that the Conrad Burns incident was in early 2006, not January 1, 2007, so I am taking out the line about the "two similar incidents" in the 2007 section of "Historical overview by year" — the other being the Rick Jelliffe incident — because the juxtaposition is not appropriate. They are both listed in the "Controversies" section.--76.220.203.140 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conrad Burns 

message: I am pretty sure that we are not supposed to be pointing to "Wikipedia:" namespace pages such as WP:BLP as a WikiLink because "Wikipedia:" stuff does not get copied when the encyclopedia is exported. We are supposed to, if needed, make them a URL.--76.220.203.140 08:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. The link to BLP is valid (verification of claim) but you're right, I missed that it needs to be a perm URL, not a wikilink. Thanks for catching that one! FT2 (Talk | email) 10:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:" namespace links 

message: We don't know enough to cast an impression on semi-protection, so I've reworded it with the facts - it has proven more successful or popular than anticipated originally.
In the same vein I've removed the unsourced and probably non-notable assertion that "Wikipedia's name becomes associated with the word truthiness".
Last, I've reworded the clumsy wording about use of redirects instead of bio articles. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims reworded 

message: Quote from article: 'On March 19, following a vote, the Main Page of the English language Wikipedia featured its first redesign in nearly two years.'
March 19 of what year? It needs filling in. Lradrama 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More specific please 

message: This is the "History of Wikipedia" article!  The Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia has its own article. We now have an entire infobox embedded within the footnotes about the Congressmen whose Wikipedia biographies where edited. This is painful. I feel that the incident deserves little more than a wikilink and a timeframe (early to mid 2006) in this History article.--75.37.12.168 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't completely disagree there.  If you want, might be best to suggest a wording for the bullet and footnote here, and discuss it briefly, makes it easier to discuss? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The monster footnote is growing... GROWING.... 

message: In the user preferences, under the "Date and time" tab, I notice the example date is the same day Wikipedia is said to have gone online (January 15, 2001). Can anyone verify if the example time (16:12 UTC) is indeed the time at which the site was created? Samuel Grant 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of creation 

message: Is the 2002 incident better described as "forking" or "breaking away" of a large number of editors of Spanish Wikipedia?
The sources seem to describe it as breaking away -- forking doesn't quite seem to capture the same sense of it. Comments? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enciclopedia libre 

message: I've summarized these here as they might still be useful: * Resources: m:Wikipedia timeline, Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people, and Wikipedia:Wikipedians in order of arrival.
* There were three Slashdot mentions in 2001: two minor mentions on March 5 and March 30, 2001, and then a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technology and culture website Kuro5hin on July 26.
FT2 (Talk | email) 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From earlier archives 

message: Anybody else dislike the pic of Jimbo in this article?  I think it's intended to make him look like a forward-thinking visionary, but it ends up looking pompous.  There are several better pics at Jimmy Wales.  Can we use one of those (or another good one from elsewhere) here?  --Nricardo 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Support. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales Pic 

message: Do you think that Wikiality and The Colbert Report should be mentioned in the article. Seeing as this show has had quite some history with Wikipedia, I think it is probably worthy enough to be included. ISD 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiality and "The Colbert Report" 

message: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was one of the first dynamic online encyclopedias (although with a peer reviewed model), developed between 1995-1998 . I'm aware of the size of the article, so I haven't gone and put it in, but wonder whether this and precedents need more attention (perhaps at the expense of some of the less notable history/incidents on this page).Mostlyharmless 04:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedents 

message: I have created the secrtions for "up to 2006" and "2007", for editors to list as they see fit, matters that might warrant a mention in the article, or relate to the History of Wikipedia.
Hopefully this will be a Good Idea -- there are many matters and if left they get overlooked, but if added immediately the article becomes just a list. Hopefully listing them here will mean that over time we can consider and check consensus what is genuinely significant, and what is not. All items need sourcing and explaining. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History article construction 

message: * Wikipedia:Archive/RulesToConsider -- Wikipedia's first (or an early) "rules" discussion? FT2 (Talk | email) 08:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible omitted items from earlier years

message: #  New York Times admits to same problem in its archives that Wikipedia has noted - old pages can preserve outdated information, especially for BLP purposes. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible updates for 2007

message: # Jan 21 - Wikipedias longest lived hoax article, on a purported outdated term in Hinduism, finaly deleted after 3.5 years of "remarkable" stability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahmanical See. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible updates for 2008

message: should redirect to this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.171.164 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the greatest story ever told" 

message: BYOP: Some paintballers might know because it means br your own paint. If the feild lets you thats what their website might say sor their add. 
BYOB: Fans of BBQ's or Fams of System of a Down might know what this is. Bring you own beer or Bring your own Bombs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben608 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BYOP/BYOB 

message: The concept of gathering all of the world's knowledge in a single place goes back to the ancient Library of Alexandria and Pergamon - how is that relevant to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not based on that concept - indeed, it has policies which preclude it doing any such thing. -PinkEllie 11:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was added earlier by an editor, as a precedent. The notion of a collection of information led to encyclopedias that led to wikipedia. Thats not about policy, its about context. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: I've reviewed the article and made a few edits, summarized below:
# The header disambiguation link to the Wikipedia story has been improved. The page Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story now disambiguates betyween the encyclopedia article here and the community's page on the documentary in project space. The DAB link is no longer needed and gives this documentary undue prominence. It's now safely moved to "see also" where all other project space resources are shown.
# Reinstate both claims about origins of idea. Both are cited, and the text used to characterize and describe this rather than assert one or the other.
# Remove statement that Sanger attributed departure to trolls. Sources at the time and in the article clearly show he stated at the time that it was due to loss of financial support for the position and other reasons.
# Remove apparently pointless comment " With Devouard as Chair and ArbCom operating, the word "troll" ceases to have any operational meaning (it was formerly defined by Wales)." -- if anyone can convincingly explain what this means and why it's encyclopedic, please reinstate.
# Checkuser - remove redundant/excess description that it's written in PHP (all of mediawiki is) and what a sockpuppet is (that can be looked up), and merge the references to keep the main article tight.
# Clarify what Nature's "refusal to apologize" to Brittanica was about.
# Wales/Sanger:
#:* This section has been modified to push one viewpoint out of two, rather than both competing claims and their evidence (original version current version). I've reverted, but included the cites and information which were useful in the 'pushed' version. 
#:* In addition, that version cited many pages for Sanger's claims. These included revision history of talk pages, and of the Wikipedia article, press releases, and media publications. I've removed all the former -- the risk of a self-ref is huge. The talk pages and Wikipedia articles were edited by many people, so we would be insane to try and cite a specific Wikipedia page version or a poage revision history to "prove" any specific status quo was the case. (A specific diff would be different of course.) Press releases and media publications are likely to be fairly solid however, so I've used those instead, they're more reliable and all that's needed.
#:* Fixed up cites on suggestion of the idea, as above in 1st section (see #2). And replace POV word "concedes" with neutral word "states" -- even though former is actually correct use in this context, it adds a "flavor" of POV. Better removed.
# China blocks - many occasions now. It's getting impractical to list them all in this article, so reword to note multiple occasions and that this section will list major ones one. See the existing subarticle for the full list.
# Minor edits - removing  etc
Diff of the above: . FT2 (Talk | email) 23:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article review 

message: I'm usually not one to complain about stuff, but This reference (note #8) from this article, is giberish and needs clean-up. Because of this I am adding the clean-up template. --AdVocare 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay! I think I've fixed the problem. However, if someone else could please check and make sure that everything is in good standing order that would be great. Please remove the "Clean-up" tag once you've done this. Thank you! --AdVocare 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad reference 

message: May I suggest to replace the photo? He does not look so pompous in real life. `'Míkka 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo's visage 

message: The rate of article creation is decreasing, even if the quantity of articles increases. The statistics claimed in the article demonstrate this: 1,000 to 10,000 is a ten-fold increase in only a few months whereas 20,000 to 100,000 is only a five-fold increase. Moreover,  Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth purports to demonstrate how article creation is slowing by several metrics. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I see this section rather outlandish, for a number of reasons. Below are my suggestions for its subsections. Opinions, please. `'Míkka>t 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Other notable occurences" 

message: The topic of  "Early roles of Wales and Sanger" in fact belongs to section "Founding of Wikipedia". If  there is an opinion that this long musing is indeed necessary, I suggest to move it into a separate article and put a brief summary into "Founding of Wikipedia". Otherwise the item is IMO bearing quite undue weight in this  general overview of wikipedia's history. `'Míkka>t 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanger

message: This one is a rather independent thread of wikipedia's history and I suggest to promote the subsection one level up. `'Míkka>t 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: Uzbek Wikipedia is banned since 10 January, 2008 in Uzbekistan :( It is the second blocking. Abdullais4u (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking 

message: How old is the oldest user of Wikipedia, who has a user page?  Neduvelilmathew (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isnt it Jimmy Wales?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.37.64 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest wikipedian 

message: These sources were previously listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions , they have been removed from there but could be useful in this article.  Cirt (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EFF/literary agent lawsuit 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "milestone articles" :
** While this article was announced as the milestone on the Main Page, multiple articles qualified due to the continuous creation and deletion of pages on the site.
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: Please see my concerns about the "Seigenthaler effect" graph that I just removed from Seigenthaler incident, but which still appears on this page. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seigenthaler effect graph 

message: So, what was the 2,500,000th article as listed on the main page? Is that something we can add to this page? Theloniouszen (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2,500,000th Article 

message: I wrote an informational article about a small business, not advertising. Just because the company is not a huge and doesn't have 1000s of articles written about it on the internet does not mean that people don't want information about it! I think this is extremely unfair and Wikipedia should review their policy. Your policy is effectively keeping small and mid-sized businesses from having articles on your site and promote the mamoth companies that already have millions of informational articles available on the internet.
I WANT A REAL ANSWER FROM A LIVE PERSON, NOT A FORM LETTER PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!
TSD2000 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an answer from a live person. Wikipedia is not a business directory or a SPAM site. If your business is notable (meaning that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources) then it gets an article. Otherwise no. You are welcome to try and change our policy via the appropriate means. Manning (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Unfair: discriminates against small businesses 

message: No mention of this in the controversies section. Seems like a no-brainer to me. National news and a pretty interesting story.
205.219.133.241 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies - Stephen Colbert 

message: has twice removed (and I have restored) the section on Iran. The first removal had an edit summary of "unsourced", the second, none. There was no attempt to add a  template, and no other unsourced item on the page was removed or otherwise challenged, Given that the user concerned says on their user page that they are "proud to be Iranian" and "proud of the Islamic Republic of Iran", there would appear to be a clear conflict of interest.  Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please just add a reliable source if you have. As a wikipedian I am responsible to remove unsourced wrong materials from the articles. --Wayiran (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: What was the first Wikipedia article? Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First article 

message: Is there a specific rationale for singling out Florence Devouard and Fred Bauder as being key to the arbcom structure? As I recall Florence was never a member of the arbcom at all. Is the implication that she exerted influence behind the scenes? I don't doubt Fred Bauders great influence on the *practices* of the arbcom, but I do have some misgivings about saying the same about its _structure_ without some better references; even if it is stated with the implicit caveat that other people were involved. I would be glad to find out that Fred in fact basically created it from the ground up in terms of structure, and that would of course satisfy my curiosity fully on that point.
Do allow me to emphasize that this is in no shape or form a slam on either Fred or Florence, they justly have made a *huge* contribution to wikimedia, but I am not sure to my own satisfaction that the structure of the arbcom was they most pertinently did it. If somebody knows, please fill in the details! -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key people in setting up the Arbcom structure 

message: Wales cites a story in The New York Times as the "first real notice" Wikipedia got here. Skomorokh 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First major news story 

message: Can someone update the page with details of the switch (?) to Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0?
I don't know enough to do it justice.
twilsonb (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switch to Creative Commons License 

message: My views on WP and CZ are repeatedly misrepresented in this article.  "In 2006, Larry Sanger founded Citizendium, based upon a modified version of MediaWiki. It has expert-led top-down culture, the absence of which in Wikipedia he views as a major concern."  CZ does not have a top-down culture, and I do not have a "major concern," whatever that would be, that a "top-down culture" is absent in WP.  CZ has a better claim to being a bottom-up project than WP, as I have argued in the CZ blog.  I also would not say that CZ is "expert-led."  It is at best expert-guided.  It is a bottom-up wiki, an open project, in which anybody can start and work on any article he wants.  Anyone who maintains otherwise either has an axe to grind, or hasn't spent any time on the site--or both.  Anyway, I find the views attributed to me here in a few different places to be little more than straw men. --Larry Sanger (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My views on WP 

message: *"Wikipedia boasts 13 million articles in total, when you count the versions    in the other 271 languages.   It was formally launched on January 15 in 2001 by Ward Cunningham and Richard    Stallman..." - Wikipedia reaches three million articles - Daily Telegraph, August 16 2009.
:Apparently this erroneous statement was based on information obtained from this Wikipedia page Little Professor (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Telegraph article on Wikipedia 

message: According to the website of theBBC, research by Spanish researcher Felipe Ortega suggests that Wikipedia lost 49, 000 of its active editors in the first few months of 2009. Do you think this should be mentioned here? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felipe Ortega's research 

message: Nothing here or in Wikipedia about Certain Recent Events--events which are at least as important as almost anything else on this page, since the actual founding of the project or a major milestone like one million articles. --Larry Sanger (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of encouraging a WP:COI violation: . :) Robofish (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia Signpost wrote about "Certain Recent Events"  on wikiMedia. Which is not wikiPedia. So Certain Recent Events belong to the History of Wikimedia. Or am I missing something? Ralph Saroyan (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm again. 

message: I don't really get the hatnote in the History_of_Wikipedia#Historical_overview_by_year section, I wonder if corss namespace links have been deleted since it was put there?
'Articles summarizing each year are held within the Wikipedia project namespace and are linked to below. Additional resources for research are available within the Wikipedia records and archives, and are listed at the end of this article.'
Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical_overview_by_year hatnote 

message: "Founding" and "co-founding" logically not being mutually exclusive, I tweaked 1st sentence in the pgraf contrasting Wales's self-definition as founder with the many references to his being co-founder.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-founder 

message: When their lawyer tried to purge the Wikipedia article.
: What. --illythr (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole section needs some love.  For now I've clarified that bullet point using the sources cited in the linked article.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of biographical articles 

message: First edit to Wikipedia: 
*WikiPedia is a wide-open encyclopedia project.  Who knows where it will go?
I venture no one could have guessed.   Will Beback  talk   01:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mon, 15 Jan 2001 

message: These touch on Florence, who was very important to the wiki communities early on (pre-2004) and then joined the Board in 2004 along with Angela (who isn't mentioned in the election bit at all!), but who wasn't anything to do with ArbCom. From the initial version of the Committee's page you can see the original appointees, who don't include Florence (Anthere). The main policy drafters were User:MartinHarper (then "MyRedDice"), myself and Fred Bauder. Note that despite that list, Erik didn't accept his nomination, so we were 11 at the start, and UninvitedCompany resigned in February before we took our first open case. 
Obviously I could edit this, but given that we also wrote the COI policy I'd feel a little morally wrong doing so. :-)
James F. (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom mentions for 2003 and 2004 

message: It strikes me that this article would not be complete without the crediting of the visionary genius, not too mention hilarious, author Douglas Adams, RIP.  His trilogy on the Hitchhikers guide has no doubt inspired Wikipedia, and he was clearly ahead of his time in terms of how the world almost works today, in terms of laptops, Iphones etc.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_adams
82.32.17.95 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Douglas Adams and Hitchikers Guide 

message: Wikidata, mentioned in the subsection "2012", seems to be relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tabular Data. 
—Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Tabular Data 

message: The documents seem to say 16.7 million users... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  written by over 31 million registered users 

message: Could mention Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  omission 

message: In the paragraph "Historical overview by year" I read:
 - In May 2005, Wikipedia became the most popular reference website on the Internet according to traffic monitoring company Hitwise, relegating Dictionary.com to second place. -
Does a source of this information exist somewhere?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nechljudov1981 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2005 - Hitwise report 

message: Hi, some moths ago it was decided that Wikipedia Zero would simply redirect here: History_of_Wikipedia#2011. Really though? It is a remarkable initiative, growing in countries as more mobile operators join. See wmf:Mobile_partnerships#Where_is_Wikipedia_free_to_access.3F and mw:Press Coverage of Wikipedia Zero to get an idea of the impact. mw:Wikipedia Zero has all the details. Please reconsider as this is now a lot more than event related to the history of Wikipedia in 2011.--QuimGil (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting Wikipedia Zero as redirect 

message: Hi, why it is written that there are only over 26 million articles? In the Grand-Total statics i read even over 36 milleion!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.60.52 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over 26 million wikipedia articles 

message: One learns at WikiWikiWeb that wiki is Hawaiian for "fast" or "quick." So happens there is a chain of stores in Lithuania called Iki, which means the same thing in Lithuanian. Lithuanian (and Latvian) are ancient Baltic languages unrelated to neighboring language groups, but supposedly related to Sanskrit.
Now I'm wondering if a) there's any relationship between wiki and iki, or b) if either word is related to one in Sanskrit. Anybody know? Sca (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Is there a reason why the Controversy section begins at January 2005? Surely there must have been controversies during the first four years of Wikipedia. I'm not expecting this list to be comprehensive (there is a separate article for that) but it's puzzling to see a glossing over of the early years in this timeline. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 19:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Speak not of the Dark Times again or thou shalt be henceforth booted from the internet!   (just kidding -- sorry I could not resist)   I too am curious about the detailed history of wikipedia.  In some ways, though, I think that en.wikipedia.org is the wrong place for such details.  No doubt there were controversies, of various petty internal sorts.  But the usual rules of wikipedia are pretty clear -- the topic (or in this case sub-topic) has to be both encyclopedic and notable, and is preferably reported in a tertiary reliable source.  Back in 2002, there were not all that many articles about wikipedia, compared to the post-2006 era.  Wikipedia is one of the top ten websites in the world now, but it was certainly not before 2005.  So in a way, the lack of detail in this article is consistent with the main goal:  creating the best encyclopedia we possibly can.  Although it is conceivable there are deep dark secrets being erased from history, I kinda doubt it.  From scanning through the linked articles, I do not find any references to specific pre-2005 controversies, unless you count a couple of snide potshots by employees of Encyclopedia Britannica as controversial.  I have an edit to make that is useful, so after I do that, I'll go ahead and put something into the article itself, to see if somebody can confirm whether omission of controversies during the first few years of wikipedia's existence is due to eviiiiil, or just due to the non-Notability of early controversies such-as-they-were.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies? 

message: Text as of November 2013.  
*  According to Alexa Internet, Wikipedia is the world's sixth-most-popular website.
*  According to comScore, 
*  Wikipedia receives over 85 million monthly unique visitors from the United States alone.
Good-faith change by  on 3rd Dec.  
*  According to Alexa Internet, Wikipedia is now the fith-most-popular website as of December 2012 . 
*  According to AllThingsD http://allthingsd.com/20121220/the-fifth-biggest-site-in-the-world-operated-on-a-budget-of-27m-last-year/, 
*  Wikipedia receives over 85 million monthly unique visitors from the United States alone.
Good-faith update by 62.65.192.82 on 12th Dec.  
*  According to Alexa Internet, Wikipedia is now the sixth-most-popular website as of December 2013. 
*  According to AllThingsD http://allthingsd.com/20121220/the-fifth-biggest-site-in-the-world-operated-on-a-budget-of-27m-last-year/, 
*  Wikipedia receives over 85 million monthly unique visitors from the United States alone.
My consolidated version, with all three factoids (plus one historical factoid for contrast), as of today. 
*  According to Alexa Internet, Wikipedia was the world's sixth-most-popular website as of December 2013, unchanged from 2012.Wikipedia.org Site Info. Alexa.com. Retrieved 8 November 2012.
*  (Dow Jones put Wikipedia in fifth at 2012 year-end.)http://allthingsd.com/20121220/the-fifth-biggest-site-in-the-world-operated-on-a-budget-of-27m-last-year, by Liz Gannes; AllThingsD became a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Company Inc in 2005, and was absorbed into  WSJ.com during 2013.
*  According to comScore, 
*  Wikipedia receives over 85 million monthly unique visitors from the United States alone.
The historical Alexa-data was pulled from the archives, Line 177.  Anybody think this revamp is incorrect, or could be improved?  Looking into the Dow Jones figure, there does not seem to be an update... sometime during 2013, the AllThingsD subsidiary website was pulling into the WSJ (as WSJ.D apparently) and although they mention wikipedia in about three dozen articles, WSJ.D hasn't mentioned a popularity-ranking for 2013 that I noticed.  Thanks.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  popularity-rankings  

message: This article History of Wikipedia specifically mentioned in 2014 book The Innovators: How a Group of Inventors, Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution:
*
Also a positive mention on page 440:
*
— Cirt (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also an excerpt from the book published by The Daily Beast:
*
— Cirt (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 book The Innovators mentions this Wikipedia article 

message: *
Might be a useful source for use in this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New York Times: Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information 

message: This edit was made by User:Peter Damian, reverted by User:Francis Schonken with the edit summary, "the story line in these sections is "what happened", not "who did it", e.g. who registered the domain names not mentioned.", restored by  User:Vejvančický with the edit summary, "restored a more detailed and informative revision, the restored content is verifiable by many sources i.e. at G-Books - please discuss at the talk page instead of reverting.", and reverted by User:Schonken with the edit summary, "again, story line is: what happened, not who did it, e.g. not mentioned who registered the domain names."
The disputed edit deletes  replacing it with
and adds
The first part of this edit does personalise the history a bit more than the earlier version. I'm still deciding whether this is a good thing. Meanwhile, Peter, can you clarify what sources are represented by "am2006" and "signon", please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  23:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough time this week. I wonder if it's that important? Peter Damian (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

text: am 2006 is The Atlantic Monthly, September 2006, p. 91; signon is Jonathan Sidener, "Everyone's encyclopedia", http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html Peter Damian (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150224050125/http://wikimedia.de/fileadmin/wiki/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/pm_Medienkompetenz_1.pdf to http://wikimedia.de/fileadmin/wiki/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/pm_Medienkompetenz_1.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2000-April/000143.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/announcement.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/announcement.es.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100116135932/http://www.bjp-online.com:80/public/showPage.html?page=865802 to http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865802
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Someone please update the image. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  False graph at the very top 

message: The lead of this article dates Richard Stallman's essay "The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource" to December 2000, whereas the section immediately below, "Background", dates it to 1999. I see that the message-board post used as the ref in both places bears the date 18 December 2000 but says at the bottom "Copyright 1999 Richard Stallman". I don't know enough to resolve this contradiction, but the article shouldn't be giving two different dates for the same document. Deor (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130420040802/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gccuL4nG-V0xDvR1v7LMPs7VrSqw?docId=N0109211341930943043A to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gccuL4nG-V0xDvR1v7LMPs7VrSqw?docId=N0109211341930943043A
*Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.wikipedia.com/wiki/RulesToConsider
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725171851/http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/scripts/ts.dll?s=1&id=E0016306&mp=/art/1266/&sc=Wikipedia.htm to http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/scripts/ts.dll?s=1&id=E0016306&mp=/art/1266/&sc=Wikipedia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929103102/http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13750990.htm to http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13750990.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is h2g2 ignored when it was launched in 1999 and was the first user generated encyclopedia by some time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.246.146 (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  h2g2 

message: Page 143 of The Wikipedia Revolution says, "Wikipedia was imagined in a Mexican restaurant in San Diego.". Supposedly Sanger and Wales were having lunch/dinner? Should we add this info, or is it too trivial?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia was imagined in a Mexican restaurant in San Diego." 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221005820/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_Terrorist_Attack
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3AUsabilityInitiativePrefSwitch
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C69880%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From what is stated, Sanger sounds more like inventor and pioneer of the Wikipedia while Wales was co-founder, financier and then some type of executive or producer kind of position. Having two "founders" is bit ambiguous unless the whole idea was brainstormed up from zero in same room. Point being, Wales can't claim sole credit even retroactively because without Sanger he wouldn't have anything to claim to. Puzzling why he does so as externally it tarnishes his image. Sounds like Wales was insecure about his contributions and there was reason for that but he wants to deny it.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.16.32 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales and Sanger dispute 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120710045913/http://m.app.com/news.jsp?key=81411 to http://m.app.com/news.jsp?key=81411
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on History of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017041126/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060923/news_lz1n23wiki.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060923/news_lz1n23wiki.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315204326/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/011111-wikipedia-decade.html?hpg1=bn to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/011111-wikipedia-decade.html?hpg1=bn
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108070722/http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/60532-wikimedia-donations-total-20-million-for-2011 to http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/60532-wikimedia-donations-total-20-million-for-2011
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001000113/http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2469270.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2469270.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929010706/http://futurezone.orf.at/stories/1502467/ to http://futurezone.orf.at/stories/1502467/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426034156/http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2187709/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repair to http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2187709/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repair
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427230436/http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/site.php to http://wikipediaondvd.com/site.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428063225/http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/nav/art/d/w.html#Natural_sciences to http://wikipediaondvd.com/nav/art/d/w.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How did Jimmy Wales lose control over Wikipedia?--Saramag (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales.--Moxy (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Wales 

message: "Projects and milestones" section:
On 20 June 2003, the same day that the Wikimedia Foundation was founded, "Wikiquote" was created.A month later, "Wikibooks" was launched. "Wikisource" was set up towards the end of the year. 83.28.28.15 (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly unnecessary quote marks 

message: It would be good if this article could clarify when significant milestones in Wikipedia's history, such as Wikipedia: Village pump or Wikipedia: Articles for deletion were set up in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant milestones

message: Their isn't a lot of information about the recent histiory of the site outside of the lead about news in 2018 and very little about news for 2017. Zubin12 (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a lot of recent information 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I thought this resource might be of use/interest for this page: https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/wp/redux/  -Reagle (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey , i do believe it's a historically very meaningful piece of archive. By the way, what would you (and anybody involved in this article) think about adding a paragraph about academic milestones like your book, Lih's, Tkacz's and a few others as a testimony of growing interest on Wikipedia as an academic topic over time ? Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I think that's a fine idea, but I wouldn't do it myself because of WP:COI. -14:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes , that's the tricky part, I agree. I kind of am myself involved. Maybe less so, so I could give it a shot and add a disclaimer in this talk page.Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First 10K contributions to Wikipedia 

message: "The English Wikipedia passed 100,000 articles in 2003" does anyone know the exact date when this happened? If anyone was on Wikipedia on January 2003 please do tell if you have an exact date when the website displayed that Wikipedia worked on 100,000 articles. BMO4744 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact date when English Wikipedia hit 100,000 articles 

message: Can this article be developed to be the featured article on 15 January 2021?
And when should there be a '20 year WP member Society' (given that there are 10- and 15- year societies)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's 20th birthday suggestion 

message: I have heard on the BBC quiz programme Only Connect that Jimmy Wales' first words on Wikipedia were "Hello World". If any could find a reliable source for Wales' first words on Wikipedia, it could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already mentioned in the second paragraph of the "Founding of Wikipedia" subsection. It is, however, sourced only to Wales's claim of making the edit, since the edit itself does not survive. Deor (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello World

message: Around one third of the articles of the English version comes from a single user. The history of WP seems to be the right place to mention him.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A third of what's on Wikipedia 

message: The way Larry’s quote is edited in  makes little sense. Please replace it with the following:
As it currently stands, there’s a non-sequitur mention of Bomis erroneously (and non-grammatically) linked to a sentence fragment, and a missing appositional comma after the quoted mention of Wales. The above version also includes a statement ("he’s had the idea since at least last fall”) that is currently separated from the passage it appeared in. 151.132.206.250 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Volteer1 (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per MOS:LQ, please put the final period inside the quotation marks (). Thanks! —151.132.206.250 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: The source material has "This is indeed my dream job, because...". As MOS:LQ says to only place terminal punctuation inside quotes if it was in the original source, it is correct to place the period outside of the quotes. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, whoops, my mistake! Thanks for the attention to detail. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021 

message: subjek-predikat-penutup 140.213.127.230 (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  aku melihat sesuatu pada pagi hari ini 

message: Hi, is there a way to improve the quotation style, or add more context to Bourgeois v. Peters in History_of_Wikipedia#2004? As written its not clear which part of the larger quote is actually being cited or why; the original document at least uses double quotation marks and a clear Wikipedia citation immediately after the quote. I'm at a loss for a decent suggestion, or I would offer an edit.
While on the subject, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_court_source has a redirect for Bourgeois_v._Peters but it only comes to the history section here, and that seems pretty useless as such - if its only for the references, then perhaps add refs there, and red-link it?
Thanks! Strangerpete (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 Bourgeois v. Peters citation 

message: I think there's enough criticism of the way Wikipedia goes about fundraising that it's notable to put in the article at this point; however, I am not 100% set on that, and when I tried to write up a sentence it just came out very...off? Either way, I couldn't write anything that was written well, and combined with me not being 100% set, I'm asking here for more opinions/someone else to write it. Sorry. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Wikipedia's fundraising banners 

message: I have just now added a ref with announcement of Nupedia's wiki, but Larry's mail doesn't make it clear who set it up (and current version says it was Jimmy with no refs). Anyone researched this subject in depth? Please pull in some more good sources on the history of WP, it would be great to have all most important first-hand accounts in this article! 188.66.35.138 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who set up Nupedia's wiki? 

message: When did Wikipedia become nonprofit?  
Talk:History of Wikipedia/Archive 1 includes a comment from Jimbo Wales 2007-04-20 that Larry Sanger claimed he was the "founder of Wikipedia", and Jimbo described himself as the "founder of Wikimedia Foundation", in part to avoid arguing over whether he or Sanger or both deserved to be called the "founder of Wikipedia".  
Since the initial version had domain names ending in ".com", it suggests that Nupedia and Wikipedia were still initially founded as for-profit organizations.  However, when it became clear that funding had to come from contributions, the organization was presumably converted to a nonprofit.  How did that happen?  I'd like to see a section on that in the present article, if that's feasible.  
FYI:  I'll be hosting a half-hour call-in on Wikipedia, live on 90.1 FM, KKFI.org, Kansas City, this evening starting 2022-12-20T18:00 (-6) = 2022-12-24T00:00 UTC.  You can join at that time via Zoom with links in Wikimedia call-in on KKFI.  If you read this while there is still time, you can connect via Zoom from anyplace in the world with an adequate Internet conneciton.  
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My question regarding when the project became a nonprofit is answered in "Wikimedia Foundation#History":  Volunteers creating content were opposed to running ads, which meant they would have to ask for donations.  To support that, the Wikimedia Foundation was officially founded 2003-06-20. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonprofit? 

message: It is 100% more difficult to navigate the website. The previous design was perfect as it followed the KISS principle. Now nagivating between pages and articles is a lot more difficult and requires much more user interaction, which is not the point of what Wikipedia wants to be; an encyclopedia anyone can access.
The new CSS looks like it was designed by a elementary school child. Please tell me there is a way to revert to normal logged in or out, because I am never going to use this site again in this format.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.94.39.140 (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you sign up for an account, you can select the old Vector 2010 skin in your preferences. Cullen328 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging @AHollender (WMF) so they are aware.  S0091 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I expect that supported add-ons will soon appear to allow users of the major browsers to reverse this change locally.  As an interim fix, readers who are not logged in and are comfortable with JavaScript can return to the previous skin by installing Tampermonkey and adding this script with @match modified to https://en.wikipedia.org/* Certes (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was able to reinstate the old interface.  Easily done. Familiar.  I am a Luddite.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The redesign is horrendous 

message: I wonder... May you try changing the position of each of Wikipedia article that has reached a milestone to make it relevant to the style of wiki? Technobladex (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the position of milestones 

message: Some milestones have probably been covered in RS, but this entire section was mostly cruft. Mentions of milestones for other social media platforms (close enough to Wikipedia) are in body text and much rarer. Mach61 (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Notable cruft can be probably incorporated into the narrative history. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I blanked the milestones section