Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is succeeding

message: This essay is the best that I have seen on Wikipedia so far, it's well written, well argued, and well sourced. Geekpotato24 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Best essay ever!

message: I just started this page today in response to WP:FAIL Feel free to help finish it. Jeff Carr 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page started 

message: WP:WINF#A_response_to_performance_on_broader_topics. It appears to have a section copied wholesale out of WP:FAIL and included verbatim. Is this a mistake? I do not understand.--Filll 00:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am confused about this section 

message: If the dichotomy between this page and 'WIF' is going to be maintained I'd suggest renaming this to something like 'Wikipedia is succeeding'. Better yet would be to toss the 'rival POV forks' idea and merge the two into something like 'Is Wikipedia succeeding'? The primary failing of the other page is that it does not merely have a presentation of POV facts, but POV assumptions. For instance, it implies that there is a significant problem of featured article degradation over time because 340 articles have been de-featured... but that's an (incorrect IMO) assumption about WHY they were de-featured. In fact, I'd argue that most de-featured articles have been demoted because standards have gone up... rather than the quality of the article going down. Most articles rejected from 'Good' status today are of higher quality than the earliest 'Featured' articles were. Having the two essays split like this makes it impossible to directly address these issues where one or the other relies on POV assumptions. If we're going to have an honest analysis of the progress of Wikipedia it ought to include all sides of the issues... articles are demoted because they deteriorate AND standards have gone up, we have a small percentage of 'Good' articles because alot aren't of high enough quality AND because there were a million articles before 'Good' status ever existed and most of those haven't even been assessed yet, only 72 of 1182 'core' topics are 'featured' articles BUT that's more than we had last year and there are lots of high quality articles which have never been assessed, et cetera. Looking at just one side and cherry-picking statistics / assumptions serves no valid purpose. Only a balanced analysis can actually TELL us anything worthwhile. --CBD 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and changed the name. Jeff Carr 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Several people have suggested that we start a new NPOV article in WP space that evaluates Wikipedia according to the published standard criteria used for other encyclopedias, for which I recently gave three independent citations from reliable sources.  Each criterion would get its own section in the article, within which there would be three subsections: Pro, Con and Consensus for each type of argument (an idea borrowed from Thomas Aquinas' Si et Non).  We can also have additional sections at the end to address non-standard criteria in a similarly three-fold way.  I'm interested in whether people here would agree to deleting this article in favor of such an article.  At any rate, I would like to move my material from here to the new article, since it seems better suited for such an article.  Thank you for your thoughts and time, Willow 06:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to new, neutral article?

message: The article mentions vital articles, and seems to suggest that nothing is wrong here.  There's plenty wrong.  Here is my assessment of the philosophy vital articles, as follows:
* Philosophy – we know all about this.  We just got an incorrigible troll evicted (6 month block) after two months of pleading, but only after being ticked off twice by admins for being bad editors by not being nice to the troll blah blah.  It is still a complete mess.
* Beauty – this is actually not bad
* Ethics – no tags, and not a bad article
* Epistemology – not so bad, but still has an unsourced claims template.
* Belief – 'may contain original research or unverified claims'
* Knowledge – 'Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed'.  Begins 'Knowledge is what is known'.  Indeed.  
* Truth – suffered a severe bout of trolling about a year ago, and is now a shattered relic of its original self
* Dialectic – begins 'This article may contain original research or unverified claims.'  Quite so.
* Logic – I recruited an expert to tidy this up last year, but he disappeared, and the project was never completed. It's a mess.
* Metaphysics  - this has a well-deserved cleanup tag.  Starts off OK but rapidly gets worse. 
Existence – I tidied this up a year ago, but was vandalised late last year.  I haven't had the energy to revisit it.
* Ontology – good God I never spotted that one on troll patrol.  Complete nonsense.  An abomination. 
* Reality – as the title suggests, this was going to be complete nonsense, and it was. 'This page has been temporarily protected from editing to deal with vandalism.'
Dbuckner 11:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a wiki.  There is no shortage of print encyclopedias that are more stable than Wikipedia, and so there is no need for Wikipedia to try to imitate or replace them.  On the other hand, mistakes in a print encyclopedia persist for decades.  (Does the Britanica still say there are ten Horatio Hornblower books instead of eleven?)  And print encyclopedias rarely have articles on Wookies.  A wiki can never be a standard reference, because any fool can post "Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the US." and it will be there long enough for somebody to look it up and believe it.  On the other hand, if I want esoteric information, Wikipedia is the first place I look.  And I correct errors wherever I see them. 
I'll take a look at logic.
Rick Norwood 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Vital articles]] 

message: In this section exists a mistake, highlighted in bold. Please fix it and delete this section. Discuss if necessary.
Although the Macropædia are generally much longer (2-310 pages) than the corresponding Wikipedia entry, this page-count comparison may be misleading, since the Wikipedia articles are required to limited in length and the Macropædia articles are generally compilations of smaller articles. Therefore, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare the Macropædia with the set of articles found in the corresponding Wikipedia category. --Seans Potato Business 23:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "be" inserted, if that is what was meant. Johnbod 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake: Unable To Propose What Was Meant 

message: Hi all, 
I don't agree with this approach but, if there have to be duelling polemics instead of a single collaborative essay, we might as well make this one's counter-arguments cogent.  Does anyone object if I tweak the section order and give it more backbone?  The article has been rather dormant lately.  Regretfully, Willow 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh. OK

message: ::Anyone may know something you don't. However if we stay as we are, we will be left behind by the sheer amount of Bologna posted by trolls, instead of keeping up with the good edits that are often required after the rampaging of said trolls. This is becoming a serious problem I think because more and more bulk articles are being posted and we seem (at least to me) to be policing rather then working on an Encyclopedic articles, the articles that are good are excellent, exceptionally informing and concise. others are a complete mess and utterly useless. If need be, we must reduce our focus and double our efforts in our kept articles. this is not a desireable scenario, but I have High Hopes for wikipedia in the future. although bot improvements may be a good idea ;-)
Avatar of Nothing 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Avatar's Piece

message: I've removed the warning about attacks from the opening paragraphs. These were probably my fault when I started this page. Subsequent editors have gone through and fixed up these problems and I don't think they exist anymore. I've posted an apology for this error on worldtraveller's talk page as that was not my intent. I've also gone through and changed the general order of the sections to what I think is a better order: arguements for, then responses and counter-arguments. Jeff Carr 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to the opening paragraph & a general reorg 

message: Wikipedia is succeeding because it has a monopoly. Hyperlinks in the internet are common. But thumbs linked to high resolution images, and the technical dictionary on the left (interwikis) are really awesome. A technical dictionary on the languages of the G-20 major economies is something very expensive and a real asset. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: The ability for someone to argue their point correct is not an asset. Someone with less knowledge but more time and passion can push a false point. Worse yet is if you give those people any bit of power. There are many reasons why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously, you don't refute any of those reasons successfully. 2604:3D09:667F:E810:9516:C4CA:7BB0:C4B2 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written