Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 5

message: You seriously need to update this to talk about how wikipedia actually works. things like administrators, deletions, etc.
:You can find that info over at Wikipedia:Community Portal (linked from the first paragraph of the main page). Dori | Talk 23:45, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
:The first paragraph no longer contains any obvious link to the Community Portal.  Would it be appropriate to add a "Wikipedia Governance" section that briefly describes various roles (i.e. volunteer developers, stewards, bureaucrats, administrators, sysops, Jimbo), and also has a link to the Community Portal?  
:Also, it would be nice if this main article better described the architecture of Wikipedia, such as the different groups or "namespaces" of content like articles and community pages.   At a minimum, it should explain the difference between this article and the Wikipedia:introduction, because the distinction between the two makes no obvious sense to people who are not familiar with both.  I suspect that the people who have done most of the editing of this article are so familiar with Wikipedia that it is difficult for them to look at it from a new person's point of view. JonathanFreed 20:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening comments

message: :If you wish to become a Wikipedia contributor, please take a look at the Introduction.
Isn't this a self-reference?
chocolateboy 19:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Introduction are two different articles. --Spug 00:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-Reference

message: :"Fortunately, most of us are willing to take a definite stand against vandalism ... and to get rid of it instantly."
Am I the only one who thinks the above quote (by Larry Sanger) doesn't say much? I mean, is there anyone who would take a stand for vandalism (except the vandals), or anyone who would rather wait a few days before getting rid of it? Fredrik | talk 11:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fredrik quit being immature. We all know that vandalism is like a fine wine...best when aged. Or perhaps tea is your bag, in that case you must let the vandalism (tea bag) steep to a desired richness before removing.--Elysianfields 17:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd quote

message: Currently, new users' introduction to what Wikipedia is is limited to 2 lines of description on the main page, and if they want more information they click on the Wikipedia link.  The policy on this page should take into account that this page is thus not just an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, but is the main introduction & public relations page.
I'm not sure why it was removed that many news sources have featured positive profiles of Wikipedia. --Nectarflowed 13:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "Wikipedia has received plaudits from" line that duplicated in the introduction and awards from the intro. If there's a better way I don't mind of course, but I don't think the justification can be that this is our "public relations page", which would violate NPOV. 119 19:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 119- Thanks for pointing that out.  By 'public relations' I mean an interface that presents introductory information to the public.  In this sense, I think it's important to the introductory understanding of Wikipedia that this page provides to note the reviews Wikipedia gets from prominent news sources, as well as the IBM study.  However, I agree with what you point out, that "plaudits" would be a questionable phrasing in terms of NPOV.Nectarflowed 20:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm. I don't think we should alter our normal encyclopedic approach just because the article happens to be linked to from the Main Page. That's really the wrong approach: our policies should be the same as everwhere else in the main article space. If we have a great need to treat this page differently, then we should not use this page for that purpose, but direct the user to a different page from the Main Page. — Matt Crypto 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If a different page is required (though I disagree), it should probably be Wikipedia:About. Fredrik | talk 01:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Wikipedia:Wikipedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia]] is the main introduction page to Wikipedia

message: Screenshot of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia, as an example of how a Wikipedia article might look ;-) - Fredrik | talk 19:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that be a little like looking at a mirror through a mirror?  :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 20:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that Wikipedia content gets "syndicated". The article on Wikipedia may be read on some other site or even in another medium entirely. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for image to add

message: Stevietheman has changed the categories in External links from ; to h3 with no edit summary. Why? I think there is no improvement in functionality or presentation to have a h3 above every two or three links. It is completely out of proportion and clutters the table of contents. 119
:Because that's the normal way it's done.  And it's look just fine to me. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 01:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not for editors, it is for the wider public. Do you have another reason to keep it? 119 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: h3

message: Is it just me, or is there no mention of Monday's power failure anywhere on this page or any page? Am I missing something?
:If we mentioned every time something went wrong with the site, the article would be a mile long. If you're looking for information instead of just wanting it in this article, see m:February 2005 server crash. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Failure 

message: I have to say that am extremely impressed that this article is referenced, and the method of doing so.  I'll have to figure out how its done, but it looks very professional and something I believe that should be done for all Wikipedia Articles.  Increasingly websites with articles like cycloid also have references. I think it is increasingly becoming so that any piece of information, from what ever source, needs to be referenced as the public becomes more skepticle of the information it consumes. - anon
:A Wikiproject called Fact and Reference Check exists to help reference all the facts within Wikipedia.  If anyone is interested please come and take a look :). --ShaunMacPherson 23:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It took us ages to get this done... all our current articles that people would like to be featured must be referenced in such a way! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely impressed by the references 

message: Are there any plans to create/use a distributed approach to Wikipedia? Somthing similar to the method used by Bittorrent where users share space and bandwidth.
:what silsor 22:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Would you like to have BitTorrent response times as well? Domas Mituzas 22:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
::However, it might be useful to use BitTorrent as a way of distributing the database dumps... -- Karada 23:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as it's essentially impossible to do while maintaining editability. Such systems work wonders for static content. Dynamic stuff? Not so much. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for Improvements To Wikipedia

message: Is there any reason not to include the list of language editions? This article is about an encyclopedia, and it seems very natural to include the list of major editions with the number of article in each one. Since I can't find a justification not to do so, I am going to restore this again. -- Taku 22:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
:That list is badly out of date and cannot be up to date. As you said when removing a functionally identical 'currently', "this is not a newspaper article." 119 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of language editions 

message: Worthy of note in our external links? http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page  --  user:zanimum
:How about an internal link to Uncyclopedia? -- Cyrius|✎ 14:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncyclopedia

message: The article says,
:Wales and Sanger attribute the concept of using a wiki to Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb or Portland Pattern Repository, the original wiki, though disagree regarding credit. Sanger attributes the idea to Ben Kovitz, a regular at this wiki, in January 2001.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_SangerKovitz) Wales credits Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee of Bomis who showed him the same wiki, in December 2000.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_WalesRosenfeld)
Not correct.  See the Sanger's memoirs thread on Wikipedia-L and revise accordingly.
:From "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia" by Sanger, and Wales' reply on the thread "Sanger's memoirs" on Wikipedia-l:
::Sanger: "I had dinner with an old Internet friend of mine, Ben Kovitz... Ben explained the idea of Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb to me."
::Wales:"In mid-December, Jeremy showed me Ward Cunningham's wiki..."
:How do you think it is incorrect? 119 21:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the idea

message: Surely the reason that the 'net exists is so that sites like this can exist. The ideal of the sharing of knowledge for the mutual benefit of humanity in general is the ideal of the internet itself. The world wide web exists so that knowledge can be compiled in one place,  so that all human knowledge can be stored for all time and made avalible for all people. This website - whatever its failings - should be praised.(discus)
                     Adam-Casey-Philosopher
:What on earth would lead you to believe that there is a reason the net exists?
:Steven Zenith 02:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is why the 'net exists! 

message: Or am I going blind?  —shoecream 04:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
:It was deleted by Rdsmith4 for some unexplained reason and was subsequently restored by someone else. --  04:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
::It was deleted due to page move vandalism.  That someone else was probably able to move it back faster than Rdsmith. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We seem to be missing the article 

message: Someone has deleted everything in this article and replaced it with: "Wikipedia: The Website you are looking at."
I'm from h2g2, and I shudder to think how bad this would make us look if it was one of our people playing this HHGG-style joke on y'all.
Get it back if you can! I was actually looking for info on an article I was writing about user-written sites like this.
:Wikipedia:Clear your cache - that vandalism was fixed already andy 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh no! 

message: *"In a study of the page histories of Wikipedia's English-language edition, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and IBM researchers Viegas, Wattenberg, and Dave found the mean time to correct "mass delete" and "mass delete obscene" vandalism to be 7.7 days and 1.8 days, and the median times 2.8 minutes and 1.7 minutes respectively. In contrast, the average persistency of a revision marked "all content" was found to be 22.3 days, the median time 90.4 minutes."
The footnote for this study links to the Meta article on Wikipedia, which doesn't mention the study.--Nectarflowed (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The user Neutrality apparently broke it a few days ago and did not fix it, as this revision is still good. The link still goes to the correct footnote, the templates used will always do that, but the numbering is off now. 119 20:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM & MIT study reference

message: wikipedia is a very awesome resource but the fact that people can change whatever they want in it whenever thery want (kind f like i've been doing for about the last 15 minutes) makes it a little less dependable. (unsigned comment posted by .
* You may have noticed by now that your edits have been examined and removed. That anybody can add whatever they want, anybody else can fact check it. Those who chronically vandalize or intentionally add "bad" data will also quickly find themselves blocked from editing. – ClockworkSoul 15:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nonte from an anon 

message: There is a substancial problem in this issue in the article. Wikipedia can have innacuracy problems, but when the subject is foreign countries is more reliable than English language paper Encyclopedias. When I read Portuguese-related info on paper Encyclopedia in English it is FULL of innacuracies, at least in here there are several people that is from various countries and correct many innacuracies that are found in paper enc. ~just my 2 cents. -Pedro 19:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Innacuracy in wikipedia and paper Encyclopedias

message: I think the Wikipedia article should swap content between Wikipedia:Wikipedia and Wikipedia, and make the main title Wikipedia:Wikipedia since the article mainly focuses on Wikipedia. --SuperDude 21:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an article about Wikipedia.  It isn't a user guide.  It isn't something specifically for this project (as the Wikipedia: namespace dictates), but an encyclopedia article on an encyclopedic topic.  smoddy 21:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia. Why would we want to have a encyclopedia article about wikipedia in the wikipedia namespace, why not just stick the aricle on a talk page? --Clawed 21:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename the self-article 

message: FYI I looked at this article on the date below, only to find that the content had been somewhat altered. It was only one phrase and I think it went "A gay site by a bunch of queafing (?) transsexuals." The strange thing was that the history revealed nothing, only when I "edited" the article (went to 'edit this page' and clicked edit) did the normal page come up. Any ideas as to how the vandal managed to alter the page without it appearing on the history? (Taking a look at the history you'll notice that Mel Etitis (i think) recently reverted a vandalism, could it be the same vandal?)
Dan 18:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Hi, Dan.  Yes, it was reverted by Mel at 16:24, 6 minutes after the vandalism.  This link won't last long (oh for MediaWiki 1.5!), but you can see his reversion here.  Cheers, smoddy 18:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or here, which is a permanent link (the trick is to go to the diff page, go to the previous edit, and then go to the next edit). --cesarb 18:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Crossposted at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia:
I have merged the unique content of Criticism of Wikipedia into this article and turned Criticism of Wikipedia into a redirect. There was striking overlap, so the unique content didn't amount to much, see JRM's murderous plans at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, section "Warning: I intend to kill this page". Mostly such content consisted of fuller quotes from authorities already cited in Wikipedia, e. g., this well-known and telling quote from Robert McHenry: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." Anything like that has been tenderly merged into Wikipedia. The only things I've knowingly let fall by the wayside, as being too low-quality for a featured article, is unsourced grinching by Some People, for example "Some people predict that Wikipedia is going to end up as "just as a bunch of flame wars"" (some people seem to be quoting some other people here).
If anybody's planning to revert my actions, please give some thought to the issue of references, because the Criticism page did have something that Wikipedia was in want of: an appropriate (if short) "References" section. Wikipedia had and has a very fine collection of references, but before my meddling, they were given only in a footnote section (confusingly titled "References".) Footnotes are not enough, the reader also needs an alphabetical list of the sources used. But won't such a list merely duplicate information already given in the footnotes? Yes. Well, isn't that a wanton waste of space? No, it's an essential reader convenience. The reader who wonders if  Simon Waldman's Guardian article was used, or who wants the bibliographical information for it, needs to be able to find it on an organized list, as opposed to having to dig it out of a disorganized list, which is what the footnotes are. The alphabetical list can be dispensed with if there are only a few references—usefulness and what the reader really needs are the overriding principles—but the larger the number of references, the more important it becomes to have it. 
I have made a start on a proper "References" section by importing the short References list (only three items) from Criticism of Wikipedia. I have also inlined references to these three sources in appropriate places in the text, where required. These references and their placement in the text were valuable information in Criticism of Wikipedia, and I have been careful of it. Oh, and I have renamed the footnote section "Footnotes".
I'm hoping somebody else will help with the work of adding all the other footnoted sources in alphabetical order to the new References section. Alphabetize by author's name where known, please, otherwise by article name or page name. If you like, feel free to list the sources without taking any trouble over formatting, I'll be dropping by to format them if required, and to add them myself if necessary. (I admit I'd like to see first if anybody's going to revert the work I've done so far. Feel free to be bold, as I was.) Bishonen | talk 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] merged and redirected

message: I have come across the sister project Simple English Wikipedia, and i found that searching for it on wikipedia redirects to this article, even though it is not mentioned here.  Shouldnt it at least be mentioned under Sister Projects, and perhaps even have its own article?--ColdFeet 04:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English Wikipedia 

message: We're meant to international, right? What about awards from other countries? I know that there have been several from Germany. Can we add info on these? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I am doing a research project on Wikipedia itself (its ease of use, how to use, factual information on it, advantages compared to paper alternatives), and I was wondering if there were figures anywhere on how many pictures are hosted on Wikipedia. Moreover, if that information exists, I don't see a reason why it can't be featured on this page. --Pathogen 19:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Wikipedia statistics pages should prove useful. The number of images and other files on the English Wikipedia was 227,000 as of May 15, with a total of 645,000 total across all languages. The Wikimedia Commons has 100,000 files as of May 24. I can't give you the actual number of unique images on the site as a whole, as there's quite a few duplicates floating around. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factoids? 

message: Does anyone else tend to call this website The Wikipedia as opposed to Wikipedia. Perhaps a comment about usage of The should be added. 131.111.250.45 14:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the used for specific Wikipedias, such as the English Wikipedia, but never on Wikipedia as a whole. Pilaf 23:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definite article 

message: I have just been reading Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great.  It seems to me that the time may be coming (has already arrived?) where the freedom to create and edit articles gets in the way of the reliability of Wikipedia content.  I wonder whether a hardened version based on existing Wikipedia content has been considered and if so, in how much detail.  If Wikipedia provided free raw content together with a second, subscription-based 'hardened' version, the subscriptions could be used to fund a team of professional reviewers to comb through the raw content for factual errors.  The hardened version would then provide a more reliable (albeit narrower and less up-to-date) resource, enhancing the standing of Wikipedia as a professional resource.
:This response is a bit old, but see Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 for discussions of this. --Fastfission 22:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hardened Wikipedia]] 

message: Why can't the correct number of English articles be added? The estimate isn't necessary when we have  at our disposal. "" is more accurate than "more than 600,000," is it not?   ‡  Jarlaxle July 1, 2005 04:59 (UTC)
:*Style: "more than 600,000 articles" sounds more impressive than "exactly  articles". Even when you know the exact number, this doesn't imply that using it is automatically better. The purpose of this figure is not to give the reader an exact number of articles, but to give them a ballpark estimate on Wikipedia's size.
:*Consistency: we can't obtain the exact number of articles in German, Japanese or French with a similarly convenient variable. It would look quite odd to have " are in English, more than 250,000 in German..." The reader would likely wonder why the first is accurate to a fault and the second just an estimate.
:*Same revision, same text: the same article that uses  will reflect different values based on when it was retrieved, rather than on when it was modified (boilerplate at the bottom). This is not obvious behaviour. External references to Wikipedia that quote one specific revision as mentioning that Wikipedia has X articles would be invalidated.
:*False accuracy: this number isn't even exact. Caching issues, database lags and various database overhauls over different versions of the software mean that nobody can guarantee this number really represents the exact number of articles present at one time. It's rather disingenuous to present it in the article as if we can. 82.92.119.11 1 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
::So what about "more than 700,000"? I think a hundred thousand is a rather sufficient difference to reflect in an estimate like this. --logixoul 19:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Articles 

message: There are too many old and respected (??!!) wikipedians, who revert the new edits all the time. Some of them act as a group or a gang (maybe trolls sometimes). For them, the only right words are their own words and their particular point of view. They are unemployed people, laziness teenagers, fanatics, vandals, and idiots who have nothing to do 24H/24H. They spend all the time editing articles offering biased viewpoints. They guard their edited opinions like vicious dogs. They are specialists of POV and reverting. There are country wars specialists, religion wars specialists, culture wars specialists, profession wars specialists, student wars specialists, history war specialists and so on... These guys think they are the Masters of the Supreme Truth, there is nothing to do – it’s a disloyal battle. The Wikipedia Admins must to create rules for them and watch their destructive actions. They are killing Wikipedia! I honestly think that it is impossible to stop them, so I quit this madness. Bye, and good luck. Ww ww ww 00:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Masters of the Supreme Truth 

message: Gah, I can't believe I reverted to that wrong version, was by accident, apparently someone did it before me and it messed it up. Sorry. -- Natalinasmpf 00:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops 

message: I am seeing a lot of complaints that a flaw is this system is that someone could build a large collection of miss leading pages that could bypass the public controls. I would like to suggest that an extra tab be added. This tab would open a page where the article argument could be modeled using formal methods of logic.
This would make it more difficult to post unreasonable arguments, and in effect make it more difficult to develop complex structures of cohesive misleading information.
I see a problem in this in this suggestion in that most people do not have the skills for for formal logical annalists. I think that this could be addressed with educational material and adding software to the site that would assist users in the process.
I am new to this site.
Wikipedia is a GREAT idea!
:Most Wikipedia articles aren't set out to prove a point. Therefore, they generally don't start from premises and work their way towards a conclusion. In this regard, encyclopedia articles do not seem to contain the kinds of ideas which would lead themselves to being modeled by formal logic. Take for instance any of our featured articles, such as today's, Civil Air Patrol. How would one go about modeling the article by formal logic?
:Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your proposal. Oh, and Welcome! — Asbestos | <FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk</FONT> 17:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fformal methods of logic 

message: The article refers to Sanger as editor-in-chief of Wikipedia several times, but the Larry Sanger article states that he never took an official title, but was considered "chief organizer" of Wikipedia.
In any case, it seems a little repetitive to say "former editor-in-chief, Larry Sanger..." every time his name is mentioned.
Mistercow 21:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanger's title 

message: i think praise from a billionaire software mogul in front onf such an audience counts as an award, dont you?  i cant remember exact details, so feel free to add them.
Gabrielsimon 12:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  steve jobs

message: Is there a compilation of Wikipedia on DVD or something that can hold the entire thing that I could purchase? If Wikipedia doesn't offer this, are there other places that do?
Also, I've read that the Library of Congress has copies of the internet that are constantly being updated. Are any of those copies for sale? Is there an article on Wikipedia that I can read about this type of "archiving", and how it is done (how they managed to archive the entire internet, for example)? Are they carbon copies of the internet up to a certain point, or just selected bits and pieces?
Such archives (e.g. the Internet Archive) are generally done in much the same way that a search engine like Google caches pages: by crawling the web. In fact, there is no archive of the entire internet; that would be impossible. The internet is not only too big, but it changes too quickly. For example, I could (and sometimes do) from my home host a web server that allows me to share images etc. with friends. However, since nothing links to it, and my IP address often changes, it is unlikely that any archive or search engine would find those links. It is also extremely unlikely that you will find a copy for sale. The internet is incredibly huge. The Internet Archive, for example may be large enough to fill your home with DVD's. In addition, while archiving is generally considered Fair use, it would be a very obvious copyright violation to sell a copy of most of the content found on the world wide web. Mistercow 08:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On DVD 

message: Live EPL games in Canada
When will canadians be assured of live EPL games outside of saturdays. We all enjoy games every saturday thanks to Rogers Sports net. But outside this day, seeing live games are not guaranteed. This is a big fustration for me and definatley for millions of canadians.
The big question is when will this end?
Chukwuyem Imahiagbe.
:# This is not the website of the "EPL" (no expansion at EPL seems to match), nor a forum for fans of it; this is Wikipedia, a project to create a free encyclopedia.
:# This page is not for general discussion, it is for discussing Wikipedia's own article on the topic "Wikipedia".
:# I don't live in Canada  - IMSoP 15:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live EPL games in Canada 

message: Has anyone ever said what reading level Wikipedia articles should be at? 3rd grade? 8th grade, 12th, college? --JPotter 23:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Jimbo has said tertiary-level a few times. There's no rule... 119 07:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia reading level 

message: Has Wikipedia versions, chapters or editions in different languages? On the front page one sees "In this English version", while in Wikipedia:Mailing lists, chapters are mentioned. The article speaks about editions. --Eleassar  my talk 14:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Version=edition.  The Wikimedia Foundation has chapters in various countries.  The chapters are organisations/charities.  Does that answer your question? smoddy 14:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions/chapters

message: Hasn't Yahoo decided to support Wikipedia in one way or another? How come none of this is mentionned in this article? -- User:GaryKing
:Yes. It is mentioned in Wikimedia's press release. You can read the details at :m:Yahoo! hosting. In what context do you think this information should be mentioned in this article? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
::Talk about how Yahoo pays for Wikipedia's servers, etc. as a fact, not a current event. I'm not sure of the details, so please disregard my details on this matter.
:::Well, if anywhere it would be at Wikimedia, since the agreement is not restricted to just Wikipedia, but to hosting for all the Wikimedia projects... - IMSoP 12:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahoo?