Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 14

message: I notice that the Wikipedia Logo looks rather jaggy, and I'd like to have a crack at fixing it. But, the logo itself doesn't seem to be an entry that is editable (probably for a good reason); I'd still like to contribute though. Tyler 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Logo 

message: I point out the Wikipedia policy on locking here:
Semi-protection should not be used ...
In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. 
To prohibit anonymous editing in general. 
There is clearly a lot of bias, mainly by registered users hello hahahaha
Wikipedia sound better than it is) on this page.
As an example: This page makes reference to two scholary articles hardly of worthy reference, yet fails to note the Larry Sagner (Cofounder of Wikipedia) has recently been quoted to describe Wikipedia as "often factually inaccurate" and "broken beyond repair", this at least hit national TV News in the UK. LaudanumCoda 03:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to unlock 

message: I don't agree with this because I remember being directed to this site through CNN NEWS yassa smell like khara around May 2003 but nothing was hardly here, then I cam eback in 2005 and voila, it was heavily populated
: You don't agree with what? That the site was set up in 2001? It was, trust me (or see the sources if you don't trust me) – Qxz 19:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2001

message: The TOChidden template makes it so there is a "Contents" box inside a "Table of Contents" box.  I know this doesn't matter that much, but it seems a little superfluous to me.  Is there any way in which this could be changed?  --Allispaul 06:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: Wikipedia appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed publications rather than the personal authority of experts.
:IMO this statement is false as it stands. Wikipedia can rely on personal authority of experts within their recognized area of expertize, as well as on the authority of government officials (i.e., experts in government), see WP:RS#Exceptions. The idea probably was ".. rather than on the personal authority of experts contribution ot wikipedia". In any case, what is "the authority of peer-reviewed" other than the sum of the personal authorities of peers? `'mikka 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An opinion, not a fact. requires reference. What is more, this statement is dubious: a drawback in comparison to what? Do readers "judge" the credibility of EB authors? They simply accustomed to believe in credibility of EB. In fact, in certain areas EB is biased as hell. The most recent example that came to my attention is whitewashing their compatriot John Mills (In frief, EB says that Mills "withdrew from the project" of Encyclopédie, while independent historians say he was kicked out and even banged on his head for his bad job) Secondly, we have WP:RS in place to ensure that verifiably credible sources are cited.  `'mikka 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Reliability and bias" 

message: It might be a good idea to add a section that tells you all the fun stuff they can do with Wikipedia. I like to ask people a random or hard to find subject then see if I can find it only using links from either the home page or a random article. Or maybe it's just me that likes to waste time on Wikipedia? Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stupidninja (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejoice, you are not alone! See Wikipedia:Wikifun. `'mikka 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Such a section is not appropriate in an encyclopedic article. However, that does not preclude us from maintaning project pages containing such content; in addition to the page Mikka pointed out we have such pages as Wikipedia:Unusual articles. As for your idea of trying to get from one article to another using only links, that's been around for a while; there's a page about exactly that at Wikipedia:Wikirace – Qxz 11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fun with wiki 

message: Just thought I'd point out that :Image:En-us-Wikipedia.ogg appears to be broken. This is the .ogg file linked at the top of the article as a pronunciation guide for the word "wikipedia". Either the fie is corruped somehow or the recording was made incorrectly from the start, but upon download it says something more like "P-Di". Witty lama 11:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd. It works fine for me; I hear all five syllables. Try re-downloading it, ensure codecs are installed properly etc., and try again – Qxz 11:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm uninformed as to the standards, but it seems as if this should be offered in a form that 's not ogg. Most internet users don't have the right codecs and software to play these. MP3 anyone? Stvspl 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is probably resistance to using MP3due to the fact that it is a proprietary format, while OGG is open source. --OuroborosCobra 02:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio pronunciation file broken 

message: The wikipedia search box is not very reliable. If you are a letter or two off, it won't give show you the term you are looking for. blah
:Please sign your posts!  Also, it won't give the article because there is no spell checker, but it WILL give similar articles.  Think about what you're saying.  Besides, does this belong in the article? ~  Giggy!  Talk |  Contribs About Me | QASMT 05:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search Engine 

message: Will wikipedia stop for some reason when we make first contact with aliens?
----
:Why would it?  There'd be lots of new info to add at that point, and even if some of it wasn't originally human knowledge, it would become such once humans learned it. *Dan T.* 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Curious? 

message: Footnote aside, today, 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10th in Alexa rankings 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 

message: I have sad this before on this talk page,considering just how popular wikipedia is (now top ten most visited websites) I really think a little advertissement wouldn't hurt.I'm not saying the founders should become money hungry people, but being one of the top ten websites I'm sure would mean you would never need donations from anyone,and the big surplus they could atleast put towards improving the site with extra servers or whatever,but keeping some for themselves wouldn't hurt eitherRodrigue 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: Stumbled across this article  and was wondering if anyone had heard anything about it? Zchris87v 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the 12th February Signpost article. Donate! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some days after the "incident", a generous donor made a donation of USD 100,000.00 to Wikimedia. Camptown 10:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shutdown?

message: THIS TOPIC NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. Unless you guys hadn't noticed, Conservapedia, Anarchopedia, and more are now legitimate threats to Wikipedia's web supremacy. Let's discuss what should and should not be done -- let's "be bold," but PLEASE let's keep it CIVIL. Memetic Warfare 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's talk in bold type! Talk:Wikipedia is not the place to discuss such affairs; what relation does it have to the Wikipedia article? Try the Wikipedia:Village pump. CloudNine 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides which retaining wikipedia's web supremacy isnt really a valid topic of conversation anywhere on wikipedia nor do these other wikis show any sign of threatening the popularity of wikipedia, SqueakBox 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides competetion leads to better products. If they are becommeing popular than wikipedia needs to enhance the products and services offers to stay ahead. Evolve or decease, that's good for everyone in the end! Lord Metroid 13:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides, have you tried actually reading Conservapedia? It's total, absolute, and unmitigated crap of no educational value whatsoever - for goodness' sake it would have you believe that all species originate in the Middle East, where they emerged out of Noah's Ark!! -- Arwel (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's opponents weakening Wikipedia's credibility...? 

message: How would people feel if the merge for Wikipedia community was with English Wikipedia? -- Ned Scott 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a merge is a good idea.  Wikipedia is becoming more an more notable, and it's a good way to split the info.  It can cover pedians of all languages.  That English Wikipedia page can and will be a lot larger, without any merging. - Peregrine Fisher 02:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about Wikipedia community, not Wikipedia... -- Ned Scott 03:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another option

message: I see both versions of the semi protection template are being used in alternance here   . I tend to prefer the small padlock, which doesn't add a message box, but instead of revert warring, let's discuss it -- lucasbfr talk 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, this is one of our most visible pages – often the fourth or fifth most-viewed article (and that's including the Main Page). It shouldn't be cluttered full of message boxes. Having the padlock icon in the corner lets those who understand protection see at a glance that it's semi-protected without distracting readers from the article itself. Those who feel like editing the page and aren't experienced enough to know what the padlock icon means will find out soon enough anyway, when the click the "edit" button and are presented with a detailed message about protection. It can hardly come as a surprise to a newcomer that an article as visible as this one can't be edited straight away. Now if only we could do something about that annoying merge tag – Gurch 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm for the small padlock. CloudNine 10:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Big padlock makes me happy. --98E 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small padlock or big padlock? 

message: i remember seeing that somewhere.... did it get deleted or something? 
- kozmic|sk8r 09:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Wikipedia#Criticism_and_controversy? The main article of this section has some External Links. -- lucasbfr talk 10:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really, since the content of Wikipedia is used by some other websites, about.com for example. It would be strange if they didn't had an article about us -- lucasbfr talk 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It would in fact be rather strange if we didn't have an article on Wikipedia. In the English speaking western world in particular, wikipedia has reached such a level of use and public awareness that there would be a gaping hole in our coverage if we didn't have an article on wikipedia. E Britannica have articles on E britannica and wikipedia. Encarta doesn't appear to have any articles on EB, but they do mention them all in encyclopaedia. Bear in mind due to our nature we have articles on a lot of things they don't cover and we often go into more depth then they do too. There is however a consensus though that we should minimise self references so for example, even if this makes FA again, it should never end up on the main page. Nil Einne 13:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  didnt there used 2 be a why wikipedia is/isnt so great link in the see also section? 

message: It's in wikipedia's footer, it should be prominently displayed in it's article entry.
#  Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Mathiastck 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't it just be in the footer? What reason is there for having it in the article exactly the same? Something about the chairty is in there anyway. :P —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because if the article was about anything but Wikipedia it would be displayed more prominently then the footer.  Mathiastck 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  501(c) charity 

message: A graph early in the page is described in its caption as showing the amount of articles in Wikipedia, Britannica, etc. Please, please change this to the number. It is very painful to read.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.59 (talk • contribs) 
:How is this Obscene? ffm ✎talk 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be related to Brian Sewell. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, grammar purists want to see letters and no numbers. In fact, this may not even be a grammar issue at all - it's a purely stylistic preference Gautam Discuss 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Which isn't very obscene at all, at least compared with what I'd normally use that word to describe.  I can think of stylistic tendencies that seem far more deserving of the adjective, but I wouldn't use it of them.  Besides, the use of "amount" instead of "number" is not a matter of grammar (q.v.), but of lexical choice. And no, "amount of articles" is not nonsense: it's perfectly comprehensible, and certainly not ambiguous.  I admit: if I'd noticed it before, I'm sure I'd have changed it, but only because it deviates slightly from formal style, not because it's "nonsense".  garik 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and please sign your posts on talk pages.  Thanks. garik 18:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not for the person who wrote it. garik 09:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: From all appearences, English (the language of this wiki and metalanguage for this discussion of this wiki) is a human language where usage dictates the grammatical rule and not a formal language where only the rules can define what is or is not in the language. There are many examples of finite, countable numbers are referred to as amounts without ambiguity. Just look at any commercial or government financial statement or the transaction summary of your own bank accounts. If amount is restricted to only uncountable numbers, then only numbers greater than the count of natural numbers may be referred to as amounts. As most people generally do not discuss orders of infinity beyond the count of natural numbers, a strict grammatical rule on amount would essentially ban the word from ordinary usage with the exception of referring to sets of things not yet counted. Hotfeba 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obscene grammar point

message: This topic needs a section on audience and, if data can be had, demographics. There is much confusion in many entries, especially those on controversial scientific subjects, as to whether Wikipedia is written to scientists or laymen. Arguably, it is written to laymen who do not have access to specialized professional publications or the specialized knowledge requisite to understand the specialized vocabulary of many disciplines. So while more technical articles should perhaps include correct specialized/clinical vocabulary, they should also incorporate layman terminology when it is available.
Another point that requires clarification, especially regarding controversial scientific topics that have a moral facet, is that Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or publication. It is a primarily a resource for layman. Hence, any presentation of a topic needs to speak to the scientific and lay perspective of a topic. It won’t do to speak only of “termination of life via asphyxiation” if what the layman understands is “lynching” or “hanging.” It won’t due to speak of “termination of the life of the subject” or “euthanizing the subject” if what the layman understands is “putting to death a convicted felon.” It won’t due to speak of “blunt force trauma to the cranium” when the layman understands, “she was struck on the head with a hammer.” The exclusive use of technical language in lieu of the vernacular does not make Wikipedia more authoritative. -L. Porrello 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Audience and use of the vernacular