Wikipedia talk:Improve this article about Wikipedia

message: I've gone through the article and fixed (I hope) all of the major grammatical and punctuation errors, and I've run it MS Word SpellCheck (not that that is too efficient.) I hope everything is correct. Also, should we expand this article to include mention of talk pages and other stuff, or would that be getting too complicated? Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk  21:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above we can't let the article get too big. There are a lot of aspects I'd like to mention, but we have to remember, this is not exactly a regular article which we can add as much as we want (and then spin off to more pages, subpages, etc...). The purpose of this is to make his magazine article as accurate and honest as possible, not write a completly different one. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 22:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Is this right?  I don't pay attention to the Bush article, and I remember that the new Pope's article keeps getting vandalized this way.  Is this one of those little gems left for us, or can someone else verify this regular vandalism? --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it already and provided a source. Zach (Sound Off) 23:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush and the Emperor 

message: Needs some format work. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I've added a section on editing notes, where we can pre-instruct folks about the article. It is quickly turning into an exhaustive, comprehensive redo of the Wikipedia article, which is a bad thing. 
It would help to know the publication name (can we say it - Esquire) and to give a rough word count. I know these are not usual parameters for Wikipedians, but writing this article is very different than writing a WP article. I would also highly recommend reading the original article, or this turns into Telephone (game). --- Fuzheado | Talk 00:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this vein I vote we remove the bit about administrators, I think very few of the public will care. --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this article is already about 50% longer than it started out. The administrators paragraph can go. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 01:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The current version mentions an average article length of 2500 characters - I don't think most people will care. We should convert this to words. What's a good approximation -  5chars/word? That's 500 words per article. Mindmatrix 01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing notes 

message: TacoDeposit restored this: 
:The site can sometimes seem helpless against the hordes of nitwits who sabatoge entries, adding five extra nipples to Edward Munch's Madonna, calling James Baldwin one of Hollywood's beloved Baldwin brothers, or saying that Henry David Thoreau "went into the woods and made love to trees. No kidding. He actually had sexual intercourse with them.
I assumed that had been removed because it was made up. Is there any source for any of this happening? Angela. 01:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took him at his word. If he made them up, by all means remove them. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it doesn't look like those edits actually happened. But the lines are funny. Isn't there some way to leave them in without claiming they actually happened? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 01:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one of us could go and commit them.  Then it would be true and could be included. That's probably not what you had in mind, though. Aquillion 06:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Also the piramids and vin diesel comments are unverified.  Even if they are correct, they were based on the incorrect number in the original (200,000 users instead of the accurate 400,000+).  It is a funny joke, but I think its one of those things for us to catch.  I'll remove this sentence again. --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...too late... I beat you to it. →Raul654 01:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn you wiki!  Nevermind, this framework is terrible... :) --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps some better examples of petty vandalism can be found, but I've removed the original since it seems likely it was just made up. Angela. 02:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jokes 

message: I've reduced the word count from 1216 to 801 after cutting major portions. I hope we can keep these out, in general. REMOVED WERE:
* Explanation of administrators - too much detail for a newbie magazine article
* Featured articles - Ibid.
* German C't comparison - too much research cited in one article, and it's about German Wikipedia. Sorry no offense to DE!
* MKULTRA example - obscure acronym as first example bad idea, better to go with dwarf tossing. :)
* Gun politics and Jimbo - I don't think "GUNS!" is the first thing you think of with Jimbo.
-- Fuzheado | Talk 03:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edits 

message: FYI, some articles for which Britannica and Encarta don't have entries:
* Peter Jennings - newscaster (Britannica | Encarta)
* John Roberts - Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee (Britannica | Encarta)
**See this: Wikipedia:Articles that are more comprehensive than on Encyclopedia Britannica =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some article ideas 

message: I have added Wikisource to the list of sibling projects, and a sentence about the comprehensivenessApwoolrich 08:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: 1. Bomis is not a "porn portal" (the original).  Bomis is not a "profitable pornagraphic destination" (the current version, misspelling and all).  I am very unhappy that this characterization has spilled over from trolls into the mainstream media, only to be echoed by Wikipedians.  
2. The idea that I made a pile of money and then turned to pursuing my passions of Ayn Rand, constitutional law, and free knowledge to the world is just ludicrous beyond belief.  The only reason Ayn Rand and constitutional law are in the article about me is that people were able to find out about those things online.  That I collect wine and like The Simpsons are equally true, but no one says that I pursue them as passions.
Some mention of Ayn Rand is appropriate, I suppose, but there is absolutely no meaningful sense in which one can say I have "devoted all my time" to my interest as a passion, not since graduate school at least.
If there is something outside Wikipedia which would in any way count as a "passion" in the relevant sense intended by this article, it is raising my profoundly gifted daughter, and studying eductional theory.
--Jimbo Wales 09:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to your second point - I originally added the info about Ayn Rand and constitutional law from the artcile about you to replace "facts" that you pursued paranormal phenomena etc. that were in the original draft. That is, I replaced clearly incorrect information with something that was more factually correct, though not necessarily relevant. That's the whole point of WP, is it not? Marginal improvements over time add up. Don't worry, we're working on it... Mindmatrix 13:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't giving away the answers considered cheating?  I thought the point of the experiment was to see if the system worked without crib notes.  I submit that Wikipedia would work in the way Mindmatrix suggests if it were truly thousands of people concentrating on making marginal improvements.  The concept of Wikipedia is incredibly great, but the hierarchal implementation that it actually follows gives stewardship of the articles to a few powerful administrators, thus allowing corruption and incompetence to override the project.  --Zephram Stark zephramstark@yahoo.com 432-224-6991 Don't shoot the messenger. 16:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we have a wonderful opportunity here to correct errors 

message: I suggest that when  this is finalised and the text locked a summary is produced about the numbers of edits and the numbers of editors involved. Maybe the printed version mught include a screenshot of part of the history page to show the progress of the work. Apwoolrich 13:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be funny if the article actually did have a byline.  Including the original author and every user in the history (written in incredibly small type of course, for effect).  I think that the last comment would make that a neat bit of irony.  --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment #2 

message: How will references be presented in the magazine I wonder. Should we changes the article over to footnotes instead of having a www link in the article and in the ref section? - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 15:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References/Footnotes 

message: Wikipedia:Multilingual_coordination gives 106 Wikipedias. Which is the right figure? Apwoolrich 18:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And that page links to m:List of Wikipedias which states there are 204!? Argh! - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 19:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will ask Angela :)Apwoolrich 19:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends which statistics you want to use. There's any number between 7 and 210. Special:SiteMatrix lists over 200 (I don't know if this is all of them), but of course many of those haven't got a single article yet. If you want to count active ones, then what is active? More than 50 articles, more than 1000? Perhaps they're only encyclopedias (as opposed to projects to build encyclopedias) after 100,000, which means there are only 7. The 106 figure probably comes from those with more than 100 articles. Angela. 19:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that figure also include Wikipedias like the Simple English one, though? - jredmond 20:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably, but it's not an exact number anyway. I'd just say "over 100" since there are more than hundred with 100 articles (which is some sign the wiki was active at some stage if not now) and avoids the number going too quickly out of date. Angela. 02:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me.  Thanks, Angela! - jredmond 15:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of languages 

message: Is this article supposed to be formal writing or not? If it is, all references to "you" (3rd person) should be removed; I'd already removed that before, but they seem to have been added back in. Second, if it is formal writing, contractions shouldn't be used. Even if the writing is informal and is for a magazine, I would still oppose the use of third person at the beginning. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk  20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You didnt read the intro did you? -St|eve 21:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I did, and I know that it's going to be in a magazine. Let me rephrase that: Even if it is informal writing and it is in a magazine, I still oppose the use of third person at the beginning. Sorry that I didn't make myself clear the first time. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  21:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with eliminating some of the "your's". "Your average corporate encyclopedia", "your printed version of" etc. can all go. Especially if there are sentences such as the very first one. "If you have recently taken a look...". Now I'm confused. If the first sentence means the author is talking directly to me, then do the two examples above mean that it is "my" average corporate encyclopedia? That's the way it sounds and that's why I'm taking it out. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 21:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors? 

message: We're really not sure at what point Esquire is going to grab a version of this page for publication. We only know that it will be this week. Therefore, I've started a new Revisions section at the top of the article, which points to snapshots that are extensively spellchecked and evaluated for coherence. This can serve as the "last stable version" that can be safely grabbed, while we're venturing to make bold changes on the current version.
Think of it as an alpha test of a model that might be useful for Wikipedia 1.0. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: Perhaps "programmers" would be better - I leave it to the folks who write the code to parse out. Also, some subheaders would be nice - and a (pd) image or two, just to show off (who knows if they'll print it, tho). -- BD2412 talk 09:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the changed to "programmers". I've removed the train wreck image though. This wasn't a featured picture, and didn't seem relevant or significant. I'm sure there's something more suitable that could be used. Angela. 18:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had included this image in particular because it is most definitely in the public domain, and because it's an interesting tidbit, in the spirit of the random selection of interesting tidbits that introduce the article. I think a picture "wakes up" the page a little (the logo really doesn't do it) - after all, this is for Esquire, which is a glossy magazine which does put lots of pictures in its articles. Also, Wikipedia typically has pictures in its better articles. I think catchy subheaders would snap it up a bit as well. What do you think? -- BD2412 talk 02:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think something that has been featured or something that is relevant would be better. A black and white image that can be found anywhere (ie- it wasn't taken by a Wikipedian) doesn't seem the best we have to offer. I don't think we should add subheaders - they weren't in the original and don't seem very typical for such a short magazine article. Angela. 02:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of the award winning photos that SJ showed at Wikimania might be appropriate. Fuzheado | Talk 03:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a relatively short piece - one will do. -- BD2412 talk 03:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volunteer hackers? 

message: Never mind, we have some more time on this after all. But don't wait too long to make your changes... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: False alarm

message: Don't forget to keep it punchy. There really is no excuse for passive voice or weasel-wordage on this -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 20:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree with that. How about something inspiring about how wikipedia makes knowledge free for everyone (we needn't even mention what sort of free we mean, it's all good)? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 23:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most significant thing about Wikipedia is concisely expressed as, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."  "Anyone" means me.  "Free" means, free to take, and free to add to. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, but the whole free-to-edit thing is merely a tool, our end goal is making a freely distributable encyclopaedia (It's in the wikimedia foundation goals somewhere I think). Anyway, I don't really consider the anyone-can-edit the best part of wikipedia, that's just how we managed to create this freely distributable encyclopaedia. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 23:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  Surprise. We disagree. What is information? Don't I need to read it?  Editing is reading.  Editing creates better information. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep it punchy!

message: We are nearly at 740,000 and may well breach it when this is frozen. A while back I wrote 'over 730,000' here, but is was deleted for some reason. There is no need to sell ourselves short, so I urge that at the time of freezing this is finally updated. Apwoolrich 19:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of wikipedia articles 

message: I understand that Nupedia had its problems, but difficult and dull sounds a little harsh - especially the dull part. CheekyMonkey 23:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it isn't dull reading. It didn't seem like a dull idea, either.  But, maybe that's Jimbo's opinion - or not - is it hearsay? made up? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nupedia

message: Folks, tech oriented, inside jargon keeps creeping back into this article. Let's make sure  words like transparency, markup and GFDL are avoided. Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we done with this, or is it still open? ≈ jossi ≈ 00:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still open, or open again really. And I'd just like to say I agree fully with Fuzheado. Perhaps even "top-down" is too much? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 00:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I'm not sure the general public knows what we're talking about in terms of top-down versus bottom-up. Fuzheado | Talk 01:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature article, not Linux Journal 

message: In the link supplied in the article, it does not seem to mention the word "Washroom" at all. I do remember reading this somewhere, although I can't remember where. Can anyone help out here? --HappyCamper 01:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this link that was a reply to McHenry . I believe he said this: "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." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article link, but he uses the term "public restroom," not washroom.  -- Norvy (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation about the washroom comparison 

message: Can anyone explain why these examples are useful or relevant? I'm not sure I understand:
: Anyone who wants to learn about Thomas Jefferson's slave Sally Hemings, the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, or Trinidad and Tobago's Democratic Labour Party will find detailed articles with extensive references.
-- Fuzheado | Talk 02:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're examples of the type of serious subject one may want to read about in an encyclopedia and which are treated well in Wikipedia. You could pick more boring ones, but I think these are interesting and may motivate the reader to actually compare Wikipedia to other encyclopedias. Other good articles in that category could be found in WP:FA. Personally, I also like Milgram experiment, as it receives no coverage in Britannica or Encarta. I'm against dumbing down the article further, though.--Eloquence* 02:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing examples 

message: Since it's always good to know the context and audience, I've assemebled some typical Esquire pages on this subpage: Writing Samples. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Samples 

message: Game over, man! Game over!
Well done, everybody. That's one respectable article. --Maru (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give yourself a pat on the back 

message: Some basic stats about the article:
* Total edits:  532
** User edits:   525
** Anon edits:   7
* Unique editors: 75
* Byline: Amaurea, Android79, Angela, Antandrus, Apwoolrich, Aquillion, Arwel Parry, Ashenai, BD2412, Beland, Bratsche, BrokenSegue, CanadaGirl, Carbonite, CatherineMunro, Cberlet, ChrisO, Cimon avaro, DavidWBrooks, Dmcdevit, Dtobias, Duk, Eloquence, Everyking, Flcelloguy, FreplySpang, Fuzheado, Fvw, Grue, Hajor, HappyCamper, JYolkowski, Jayjg, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, JesseW, Jimbo Wales, Jmabel, Jossifresco, Jredmond, KF, Kelly Martin, Kosebamse, Kzollman, Lexor, Llywrch, Lotsofissues, Lubaf, Mark, Marudubshinki, Meelar, Mindmatrix, Mindspillage, Mkmcconn, Nickptar, Norvy, Notafish, Nunh-huh, Raul654, Robdurbar, RoseParks, SPUI, Snowspinner, Stevertigo, TUF-KAT, TacoDeposit, TheoClarke, Tony Sidaway, Trevor macinnis, Zephram Stark, Zscout370, 201.128.115.157, 213.243.181.28, 66.117.177.99, 80.168.224.63, 82.41.56.242
-- Fuzheado | Talk 08:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for a byline as long as the article itsself. Thanks for the tally though. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Statistics 

message: And also an author with an interest in encyclopedias.
lots of issues  | leave me a message 08:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobs is the editor, not a reporter 

message: "Wiki" is not Hawaiian for "quick". "Wiki wiki" is. AxelBoldt 02:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead for Wiki and the Hawaiian dictionary linked therein  seem to indicate that wiki is preferred.  Not that I'm an expert.  -- Norvy (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok, then I retract my objection and happily claim the opposite :-) AxelBoldt 16:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki wiki is slang for a nooner. (No, I don't have source for that.) --Zephram Stark 20:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error 

message: Apparently, the article will be available in two days (link). Access is by subscription, or for a fee (US $2.95). It'd be nice if they placed this article in their "Available" material instead of the "Member" material. Anyway, just thought I'd let everyone know. Mindmatrix 21:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Esquire article

message: It's here.  I heard about it thourgh the Signpost. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esquire article now freely available 

message: 
Should be categorized. Suggest adding to :Category:Wikipedia in the media. -- œ™ 23:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request 

message: There is a Bogus file option Lint error in the page. It is in the first line of the "Article" heading -

Here both the "none" and "right" image position parameters have been used, which is wrong. Assuming that the look of the page will be the same as it is currently displayed, the "right" option should be removed. So please change this as -

 ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Izno (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 30 March 2021