Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 7

message: I did change the article intro, adding some info from a recent NYT article with stats about Wikipedia in total (2 million articles, 7% growth pr month, 2 billion pageviews per month and traffic doubling every four months. I also added a description in the subject field about what I did. The edit was reverted by User:Cyde without any comment, nor can I see any discussion here or on my talkpage.
I thought it was common to state why one did reverts, at least he could have stated that it was vandalism if he thought so. As the article seems to be about the whole of Wikipedia I believe that it is more to the point to state the total number of articles, not the number of articles in the English version. I believe its interesting for readers to know the number of pageviews and growth as well. Or is this article only about the English version? If so, the references to the other Wikis should be deleted. Ulflarsen 19:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usual to give a citation when adding statistics. Mark1 19:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated the number of articles in the total Wikipedia, because this is an article on Wikipedia as a whole.  However, I don't feel that the correct place to add those statistics was where you did.  Try putting them in the footnote for 'steadily risen in popularity'.  Ingoolemo talk 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see there were no stats with the number of articles listed there previously. Besides, the stats were provided by Wales to NYT so I guess they are here somewhere. But my main point is that there were no reason given, not even the "revert vandalism". Myself I try my best to give meaningful descriptions and/or write something on the discussion page, or give the user a message. Not so in this revert. It is not the way to encourage others to participate. Ulflarsen 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted, but why? 

message: To avoid another incident with an article that may or may not contain factual information, there should be a disclaimer on the history page letting the viewer know that these atricles were past revisions that were removed and may no longer be taken as the information supported by Wikipedia's standards. That way noone can say that the info is there in the history and it must be removed in which it shouldn't be because information in the history is no longer relevant to the published information in the Article. I'm just stating this because one of the main arguments by John Seigenthaler on CNN was that even though the edits are there on the main page of an article, the history contains information that may not be factual and thus should be removed. This cannot be allowed to happen, as older edits should always remain in the history in the event that one is trying to bend the factual truth to a fictional belief because that is what they wish people to think of the article, not what they know about it. Like Kyra Phillips of CNN, who sees her page and is disapointed at the view that is perceived by the general public and doesn't like her entry, so she will wish to spruce it up and 'bend the truth' so that her entry looks more appealing. We must continue to allow only the truth to be shown and not let anyone simply come in and tell us to "say this about me" because I though this site focuses on the truth, not what 'they' prefer as the truth. --Azaze7
:This is a good idea. You might want to propose it at the village pump. Also, you will probably receive more attention if you create an account. --TantalumTelluride 00:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm a noob to this, but when I saw a clip from cnn, I thought I'd give my two cents. Registered and put the idea there, although I hope I put it in the right place. Proposals, right? --Azaze7 01:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. That's where I'd put it. --TantalumTelluride 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Add Disclaimer to History Page

message: Hi, some one may want to add the bit about the latest controversy and the decision to allow only registered users to create new articles as a fallout of that. And probably  should be placed on the page. --Gurubrahma 12:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes required in the section titled "Editing" 

message: The footnotes are broken (again!). Alan Pascoe 16:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Situation right now is that notes 1 through 14 are fine, then the pointer to 15 actually takes you to 44, 16 to 45, and so on. It's as if a massive chunk of text was taken out out the main body at some point in the past and the corresponding footnotes weren't taken out with it. The whole process is inherantly unstable - you have to make exact corresponding changes in two places at the same time, otherwise the notes are going to misbehave. For a "featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" (and which is subject to dozens of changes per day) this is bad news. Nick Levine 09:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've converted the in-line citations to footnotes. Perhaps someone should check the formatting of the references -- I'm not up to speed on this. One question; is the writing a bit small? People with small monitors/failing eyesight may struggle to read the references. Alan Pascoe 22:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Footnote 4 is broken. The sentence is: "Danah Boyd said in 2005 that '[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes'[4]." -Barry- 07:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Why is "added by anyone with a Wikipedia member account" in the intro? That isn't true... we allow anons to add things, but does that count as an account? Should it maybe be changed to better reflect that fact? -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 20:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the word 'added' there is intended to refer to new articles. I assume this has been introduced recently to reflect the change of policy with regard to anonymous users and new articles. Alan Pascoe 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone with an account 

message: Wikipedian was recently changed from a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedian into an article.  It should not have been a redirect across namespaces, but it also doesn't really merit an article unto itself--it serves no function except to explain Wikipedia policies and processes.  I suggest that it would best be merged and redirected here.  Chick Bowen 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to telll the reader that they are reading about a registered or known Wikipedian so that the reader can be alerted to see if the article is really "notable".  Think about Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references .  True, we now have Template:selfref, but that is current all-or-nothing.  Wikipedians who create and contribute phots are getting photo credits in the captions.  We also have Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles, which is or more than of passing interest if we are serious about minimizing the concept of "avoid self-ref". Also, people are calling themselves "editors".  I think that the reader deserves a more clear explaination and this page allows for that.  I think that every article that might be in Wikipedia not solely because of "notability" but because a Wikipedian is involved with the subject and created the article should link back to the new "Wikipedian" page.  I do not mean "is a memeber of this large organization", but rather "owns a big part of this company" or something like that. It is already happening: The question is: how to deal with it.  It it not my intent to minimize it: it is my intent that it be, when we recognize it, labeled as such.  Some examples: Sam Sloan, Brad Wardell, Charlie Richmond.  Use the "What links here" tool. See how it is just more than just their biographes?   They are borderline notable, and even less notable Wikipedians are on the "with articles" list, but that is just because I have not yet put their pages through an AfD .  Not nice, but I suspect that some of them will not make it through. Otherwise, how do you fall down the slipper slope and lose the ability to fairly label other Wikipedian content as "self referential" and possibly "promotional"? Also, we have certain types (webcomic authors, software developers, science fiction writers, etc.) who tend to become active and visibile on the Internet, but that does not necessarily make them "notable" the way an author with a published book might.  They both have something to sell, but the former tend to use the Internet (and, if possible, Google and Wikipedia) as their primary sales vehicle.  This is also relevent for who should really be a Wikipedian "with an article", but I am will to trust the AfD process for now. -- Fplay 15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I see the problem.  People are using Wikipedian internally to promote participation.  I give in. I will create a new term, maybe "Wikipedia editor".  Cumbersome, but it will do. -- Fplay 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]] 

message: Our class has to do a report on Wikipedia, and we are finding this site very useful, but the question we have is this-
"Since this website is edited by its users, how can we be sure that it is relable?"
Anyone have a good answer for us?  Please email me at hosfly[at]gmail.com
Thank you.
:You can't be sure that it's reliable (which means you can be sure that it isn't reliable).  If it's important to you for any reason that what you read here is accurate, then you should check the information elsewhere. Of course no source of information is totally reliable. Mark1 16:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As Mark says, no source of information is guaranteed to be reliable, but we do our best to ensure the accuracy of the information on this site.  For more information, please see Wikipedia:FAQ and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Canderson7 (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How can you be sure conventional encyclopedias are reliable? Take a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica article; there is a reference in the External Links section entitled "The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica". This is about how, in the early part of the 20th century, the Catholic Church used its influence to purge the Encyclopedia Britannica of anything that portrayed the church in a bad light. Alan Pascoe 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report 

message: Why does Wikipedo redirect here? 67.68.154.18 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted now. Thanks for pointing it out! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh, pedo_____? 

message: Um... Wiki doesn't allow self-endorsment, correct? So, uh, why does the Wikipedia page exist? Hm, while we're at it, maybe we should redirect Wikipedia to the "Hypocrisy" page. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 64.12.117.6 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 December 2005
:Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and the subject of Wikipedia is clearly encyclopedic and noteworthy. In fact, the Encyclopedia Brittanica has already mentioned us. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia allows self-endorsement of notable topics. As Flcelloguy explains above, Wikipedia is indeed very notable. Also, the existance of an article does not imply endorsement. Our article on Timothy McVeigh, for example, does not imply that Wikipedia supports terrorism. However, we do strive to maintain a neutral point of view in all of our articles. If you feel that the article violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, feel free to edit it or discuss the violation on this talk page. --TantalumTelluride 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "No self-reference" is a guideline, not an absolute rule, and there are exceptions in contexts where mention of Wikipedia itself is notable.  Other encyclopedias also mention themselves sometimes; look up "encyclopedia" in the World Book Encyclopedia, and you find much (probably too much) mention of World Book itself. *Dan T.* 12:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-endorsment

message: After reading this page, it seems that Wikipedia is:
- Lacking.  Lists are almost always incomplete.  The list of Atari ST software is incomplete, yet readily available on the Internet, the list of episodes for most shows is incomplete.
:...and banning all new edits to articles, as you suggest below, will help this, how? *Dan T.* 12:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...well, aside from it mentioning his military-record controversy, his youthful heavy drinking and DUI arrest, his business scandals, the election controversies, his declining approval rating, his being heavily criticized for the government botching Hurricane Katrina relief, the Plame affair, and so on... *Dan T.* 12:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ...and we all know that "[My High School Classmate]'s mom is gay!" is so encyclopedic. *Dan T.* 12:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Internet has never been known to contain a mistaken fact, or a biased article, of course. *Dan T.* 12:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ...except, I guess, for all the people who have put it in the top 30 ranking in Alexa. *Dan T.* 12:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice job Troll!  Your comments emphasized all of the points made here.   Benjaminlindelof 22:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia - The Filtered Internet? 

message: Do we really need a link back to Wikipedia? I mean, if they find this page, they either found it on google or just searched Wikipedia. I think it's redundant.
:...except when the article is exported to one of the many mirror sites. *Dan T.* 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia.org? 

message: I, myself, am Hindu. I believe when we die, we meet the great krishna, and are accepted into gishnahk. Krishna removes our souls -- When I see unproven scientific POVs in the "Death" section, I feel oppressed. Either remove all scientific black magic from Wiki, or put that WIki oppresses religions in THIS ARTICLE.
:Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are being oppressed too... their religion isn't mentioned in every topic on which it has a viewpoint! *Dan T.* 15:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased

message: Why do you say that Wikipedia is an encylopedia? It's not. Wikipedia is not an encylopedia. Saying that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia does not comply with a neutral point of view. --2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. You might want to take it up with that icon in the upper left, first. --Golbez 19:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We might consider altering the first sentence to 'Wikipedia (pronounced as [ˌwiˑkiˈpidi.ə] or [ˌwɪki-], also [-ɐ]) is a multilingual Web-based project that aims to create a free-content encyclopedia.'  However, it should always be referred to as an encyclopaedia afterwards, because I think that Mr 2004-12 exaggerates the extent to which his view is held.  Ingoolemo talk 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Meatball:WikiPediaIsNotAnEncyclopedia|Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.]] 

message: Curious, does anyone else use Wikipedia articles by typing the name straight into the Address Bar, as opposed to using the Search Box? Thanks!
--Excalibur363 00:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it in the past. Way back before I registered an account, I was fascinated by the concept that each page's URL could be predicted without having to search for it. Since then, I've realized that it's usually more efficient to type the page name in the search bar and click the Go button. --TantalumTelluride 04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage Survey 

message: The article stated, until I just changed it, that the English-language Wikipedia CD would be released in late 2005.  This obviously didn't happen, so for the time being it now says "sometime in 2006."  Does anyone have more timely/accurate information?  --zenohockey 21:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia CD 

message: Please join me in both thanking him for this wonderful concept and tell any Congressman or official you might know to nominate him for a very ligitimate NOBEL PRIZE consideration. Those who admire his accomplishment should also consider at least a $2 donation, even an offline "street person" can afford to do that. Wales4nobelprize 07:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy Wales has changed the world for the better

message: How about a section on how Wikipedia fits in, e.g. regarding censorship, democracy, objectivity, etc.  I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia has a philosophical bias, but purely because of the way it operates it has a stance with regard to how information is disseminated.  I'm not making sense, am I? Gwaka Lumpa 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy of Wikipedia

message: "to distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language" ... why isn't this in the article?
--JianLi 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission Statement 

message: I think there should be some information regarding the relative size of Wikipedia. For example, I think I read somewhere that Wikipedia is 6 times as long, by wordcount, as Britannica
--JianLi 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons 

message: I pulled this marker off the article:
</nowiki></nowiki>
As this is only a proposed process, it should not be on an article, especially a high visibility article. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stable Version Marker

message: I've fully protected the article due to a wave of heavy vandalism. If someone wants to switch it over to semi-protection, that's fine with me. android79 20:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I have given up on Wikipedia. My colleagues, friends, and family warned me about Wikipedia, but I was more hopeful, trusting and optimistic. But no longer.
I do not want to fill out forms to report rudeness of other editors, but if you care to do so:
A user with name Ewlyahoocom claimed that I was "crowing about how much money" I "made on inestments" (improper spelling is his or hers, not mine), when I reported on the stock history of a corporation. I made no such investments; how audacious of this Wikipedia editor. See AAPL discussion.
A user with name Grahamuk ranted at me as soon as I edited an article, calling me a "sockpuppet" although I always sign in, and telling me that my editing "annoyed people" and that I should stop editing and stop "annoying more people". I checked his contributions and histories. He calls other users "fools", "monkeys" and such, and has a rambling essay with improper grammar on his user page showing how self-important he is and how he dislikes other folks.
I also wanted to tell about some of my experiences, backed by references of course, from years ago, that might be interesting; User Ewlyahoocom derided me for this also.
I give up. Wikipedia is no better than internet chat rooms; I will not tolerate such disrespect of myself or of others. 
If Ewlyahoocom and Grahamuk and others like them are allowed to spew personal insults at me and others, this is no place for civilized people, and does not deserve our efforts, time, or monetary contributions.
DeveloperFrom1983 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely unreliable and insulting; just another chat room 

message: Wikipedia The Free Encylopedia turns a milestone five this January 15th!!! Happy birthday Wikipedia!!! (fireworks?) Google celebrates its birthday so why not Wikipedia???
:See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day!  - IMSoP 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy birthday Wikipedia!!! 

message: Why has my edit been reverted? How many people agree it should be reverted? 207.195.241.142 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the press release, it looks to me like both versions were wrong - that's too early for enwiki alone to have half a million, but it doesn't mention "22 language editions" anywhere, only 50. Seeing as the English Wikipedia has now reached 500k alone, and the combined total passed a million, I figure it's time to rejig which milestones are mentioned anyway, and will update both text and references appropriately. - IMSoP 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  500,000 article milestone is wrong - fixed

message: How many languages are there on wikipedia?
Pece Kocovski 12:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikis you mention, such as Star Wars Wiki, are not Wikipedias. Instead, they are either WikiCities, other Wikimedia projects, or simply unaffliated wikis using MediaWiki or other similar software. All Wikipedias are in the format "xx.wikipedia.org", where xx is the language code. If the url does not have "wikipedia", it is not Wikipedia. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: I've gone ahead and edited the average number of seconds the article is reverted in, based on the last 50 revert times gathered by my Bot, see this page for all the data used to come up with the new average of 21 seconds.  --lightdarkness 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal Revert times 

message: I'm kind of suspicious about Wiki-encyclopedias . . . how do you tell what to trust and what not? If anyone can log onto Wikipedia and post anything, then that forces me to go and look at another source . . . and what is Uncyclopedia? I want to sue it.
Janet6
You're right, and Wikipedia itself gives this warning, which applies to lots of things on the internet and in newspapers, etc.  It's still a brilliant resource though - in the past I've been fed up of finding things in printed encyclopedias I know to be wrong. If this is so in Wikipedia I can correct them myself Gwaka Lumpa 07:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia strives for accuracy, but you should never rely on just one source for anything, and encyclopaedias (Wikipedia included) should generally only be used a starting point for academic or other serious research. Uncylopedia is a parody of Wikipedia, the content there is intended to be humerous rather than accurate. Thryduulf 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know that, but even though Uncyclopedia {I don't want to make a link, I want as less people to find out about this site as possible) is humorous, who is it humorous to? It looks like some people with warped senses of humour came together and wrote trash.
Janet6 01:00 PM, 31st January 2006
LOL, you think Uncyclopedia is bad?  Checkout Encyclopedia damatica http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com  G. Jones 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is everything on Wikipedia correct?

message: I was shocked and angry to see the  article on Uncyclopedia . . . can it be stopped, or deleted? Janet6, 01:05, 31 January 2006
:Uncyclopedia has virtually nothing to do with Wikipedia (apart from being an off-shoot satire of it), and we have no editorial control over it. It is a wiki like any other, though, so you are free to edit the page yourself. You should understand, though, that it is not an encyclopedia, and its articles are not meant to be taken seriously. — Asbestos | <FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT> <FONT COLOR="#808080">(RFC)</FONT> 19:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it has nothing to do with improving the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia (uh, neither did that statement).  If you want to complain about them, you may want to complain to Uncyclopedia itself.  Using this talk page for this makes absolutely no sense at all to me. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Charlie Brown article 

message: Does anyone object to moving these links
*Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies
*Wikipedia:Introduction
*Wikipedia:FAQ
*Wikipedia:Press releases
*Wikipedia:Press coverage
*Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great
*Wikipedia:Replies to common objections
from the Futher Reading section (where they are incorrectly linked as external links) to the See Also section, and making them internal wikilinks?
Also, the [Statistics] page is a bit.. arcane - suggest we replace this with a link in See Also to the much more informative Wikipedia:Statistics page, which links to that page anyway. WhiteCat 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Ucucha (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move wikipedia links from ''Further Reading'' to ''See Also'', Statistics

message: Is wikipedia really an encyclopedia?? I think of an encyclopedia as something verifiable, that is written by experts. Calling it an "encyclopedia" is very misleading. Someday someone is going to web search a topic for a school research paper and the wiki article will come up, and since it says "encyclopedia" they will use the info and cite it in their bibliography. Then the information will turn out wrong and they will get in trouble for using a bad source. I love wikipedia, but i think they should call it "the online information-sharing site." TheTruth12 02:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedias should not be used for research papers anyway. They should be used to get a quick understanding of a topic, but even at high school you should be digging deeper to get facts for a paper.-Mr Adequate 02:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mr Adequat is right. You shouldn't use just one source and leave, especially if you're in junior high school or college. Janet 18:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What's an encyclopedia? If an encyclopedia is a "a written compendium of knowledge", where a compendium is a "concise yet comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge", then Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I've never really understood this idea that Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia; it clearly is by any reasonable definition. The important question is, how reliable is it? If an encyclopedia is only an encyclopedia if it is free from errors, then Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but then, neither is Britannica, or Encarta, etc. — Matt Crypto 19:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia??????????? 

message: Where does Wikipedia disclose it's funding and costs?  Shouldn't there be a sction on how Wikipedia is funded? Tbeatty 16:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The budget (for the Wikimedia foundation, the non-profit org that runs Wikipedia and its sister projects) can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget Raul654 04:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous editor mentioned Bomis.  Why did you revert it?  It seems Bomis plays a role.  It is very aggressive to remove someone's contribution to a Talk page.   Tbeatty 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikimedia foundation is (financially) completely independent of Bomis (Bomis did donate bandwidth and colo space for a while, though). I deleted that user's comment because it was (a) the only one he has ever made, and (2) trolling. Raul654 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the policy is that comments are made in good faith unless proven otherwise.   The Bomis entry in Wikipedia acknowledges that a) it played a role in Wikipedia development with both manpower, hardware and domain names and b) a majority of it's revenue was derived from adult-oriented content.  The comment you deleted was:
"It's funded by revenue from Jimbo Wales's pornographic company Bomis."  I don't think the comment was so far off the mark to warrant deletion from the talk page although the NPOV rule would require modification before making it to the main page. Tbeatty 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can safely conclude that a user whose first edit is to spread a lie designed to smear Wikipedia is not acting in good faith. Raul654 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a photo of Jimbo Wales http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Jimbo-bikini-babes.jpg back when he was running a porno blog, you won't find this photo on Wikipedia though, Jimbo Wales doesn't allow it, LOL.  Chuck Egf 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No.  IT seems it's released quaterly.  That's normal for most businesses.  They release an accounting statement at the end of the quarter.  Tbeatty 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not much into business, but isn't the budget the plan for what one is about to use, and then, when the period is over - one makes the accounting statement? But no budget for the period we are in now. Or am I wrong? Ulflarsen 16:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically you are correct.  I think their "budget" is a misnomer but it is not uncommon for them to do it this way.  I will change it to "costs". Tbeatty 17:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding? 

message: lots of vandals today... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) .
:(By the way, you can sign all your posts on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~; this automatically adds your name and timestamp.) I haven't looked at the article history (also, your comment was several hours ago, so the situation may have changed), but I would like to point out that we should protect or semi-protect this article as little as possible; see User:Raul654/protection, which can be applied to this page. However, you may request any article be protected, semi-protected, or unprotected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be protected 

message: Shall we protect Wikipedia/Stable (38860953) for a Wikipedia:Stable versions experiment?  -- Zondor 18:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia/Stable]] 

message: The world may call me naive but I believe that if people limit themselves to only posting factual information then Wikipedia has the potential to become the “Encyclopedia Galactica” of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation novels. I only wish he was alive today to see this wonderful humanist project.
--Neilrieck 21:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Encyclopedia Galactica]] 

message: A vandal going by many names keeps adding links to the page that's currently at lir.wikipediareview.com. If you watch the status bar as the page is loading, you'll see a redirection from the domain kapitalism.net to that page. There's also a link to kapitalism.net at the bottom of lir.wikipediareview.com. Here's a quote from the top of the "Thoughts" page at kapitalism.net/thoughts/thoughts.htm: "WARNING: Below is my diary; it is not a blog, it is a diary....Super Disclaimer: This is a work of original fiction and creative-writing; none of the characters or events described herein are real, any similarities are entirely coincidental." It's obvious that the similarities aren't coincidental. The author can't be trusted.
At the top of lir.wikipediareview.com itself, it says "On 5.26.05... the Wikipedia cabal tried to shut this page down: with an illegal denial-of-service attack!" It's perfectly understandable for Wikipedia not to link to such a page.
Maybe this has been discussed before, but I don't know where and I wanted to explain why Wikipedians keep removing that link and why it should be hard-wired into the system so it can't be added in the first place. -Barry- 01:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-disallowing links associated with kapitalism.net 

message: There used to be a nice language section here, with a graph and everything. And the contents box used to be nearer the top. This page looks like it has been completely vandalised (or at least not cleaned up properly yet). Carcharoth 08:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the language section?? 

message: Even though I've only been a Wikipedia user since December 2005, I still don' understand this place fully. Yes, I have successfully created my first article and I have made made changes to other articles, but I notice one weird problem. Even though this is the so-called "free encyclopedia", it seems that certain people's edits get to stay and other's edits don't. Like me, for instance ... I was recently accused by a Wikipedia user that some guy named User:Gerald15 was my sockpuppet ... she said that our articles and changes appeared hours after each other and we both "vandalized" articles ...
Now, I'm a basically nice person, but every change I make is messed up with a revert or is rudely butted out by other users. ...Is this really a free encyclopedia, a place where I can contribute? Or is this a place where people simply tell you to act civilized, don't touch nothing and be a good little girl? Janet 18:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response at User talk:Janet6.  Jkelly 18:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your contributions. Wikipedia is not censored (perhaps it is). There is no right or wrong. Everyone else is as clueless as you except some are more experienced than others. The accusation is perhaps just a mistaken indentity. Hopefully, at the expense of conflicts such as these, Wikipedia will become a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts. Wikipedia is also free in the sense that it is openly editable. Open editing does not necessarily mean it should be smooth. Conflicts are normal and you should just learn to manage it. Wikipedia is like real life. When you cooperate with some stranger on the street, you usually begin with being polite. Some people may interpret your actions differently particularly via this medium which may call for wikiquette. -- Zondor 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what edits Janet is complaining about, so it's hard to take sides, but I know  there's a huge difference in writing skill between professional editors and people with casual interest in an article who edit it. Even professional writers have their material edited in almost every case before publication in conventional media. There could be a handful of experts in writing and in the subject of the article who keep track of revisions, and it's understandable that they'd want to edit almost every revision, and I'd probably tend to agree with their revisions. It could be disappointing to someone who thinks they know the topic and thinks they're decent writers, and that might include the vast majority of people who attempt to contribute, but that's how it is and it makes sense and is good, if you must make things even that open. Personally, I would only use the information in Wikipedia to get information for further research using conventional material because of how the openness of Wikipedia affects it's reliability. I certainly don't want more openness than it already has. -Barry- 18:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's problems 

message: Carrying on from what I said in the comment before the one above, the vandalism to this page hasn't been properly repaired. I'm not entirely sure how to repair it, so I'll just provide a link to the last edit I could find that had the missing bits: , and the diff with the current version is here: . Can someone who has time to carefully check things please repair the page or revert to this edit? Thanks. Carcharoth 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism not yet repaired! 

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 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like some other link is causing a little instability at the moment.  Perhaps someone can be helpful when things get worked out.  Jkelly 02:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Currently listed as an "External" link.  Jkelly 04:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link please 

message: I'm wondering if the time has come for wide-open-door policy at Wikipedia to close slightly. Maybe all authors and editors should be required to have personal email addresses (excluding all free accounts like those at yahoo.com etc.)
--Neilrieck 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The appropriate place to discuss this would be the Village Pump. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Solution? 

message: The pronunciation of Wikipedia is most certainly /wɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/ not /wikiˈpiːdi.ə/ --Revolución hablar ver 18:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? SFT | Talk 20:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation

message: What a worthless BS statistic...we all know that most of those are inactive/vandal accounts. Why is that number still there?Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: vandal/sockpuppet accounts out number real accounts 20 to 1. Robust Physique 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registered Users? 

message: I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but while I was in China, I couldn't access any of the Wikipedia sites. I'm still not sure why Wiki would be banned, but looks like it's happened.
Oh.cera 02:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Communist governments tend to do that, especially the one in China. They have no way of censoring us, so they block access to our website. On a side note, I can't believe Google gave in and censored its Chinese version. All we can do is wait for that government to collapse and a republican one rise in its place. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I know, Google just doesn't link to sites which were censored- it's been useless to link to them anyway, because people wouldn't be able to see them even if they wanted to. I was really surprised Wiki would be censored though, and not like censoring the internet is going to help the government in any way.Oh.cera 02:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese government is fearful that the Internet will allow people to see how they have been the victims of propaganda for decades. The very nature of the internet makes it virtually impossible to control (Mental note - stop by Mills' office tomorrow and say thanks). The whole sordid affair is detailed at Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Raul654 03:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...this stuff kind of makes me angry...especially when I am already angry due to heavy Wikilag.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, in China, Google is censoring itself to stay on the good side of the Communist party and not be banned. Read it in TIME last week. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 06:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But in Soviet Russia, websites censor you!  :-) *Dan T.* 13:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But how can they censor Wikipedia in China when Wikipedia's enter page has so many languages? The Chinese can either read the English page (if they understand it), or someone can email them a saved Wiki article ... and I don't see why Wikipedia wouldbe be banned. Yes, China is a Communist country, and yes, I know Wikipedia has gone a little too far with picture freedom (see the Buttocks article), but I still don't understand why. Janet 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can ban wikipedia in every language. Robust Physique 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Banned/Censored in China 

message: Can someone please find why this article is in the above category, and remove the code? I tried, but couldn't find it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the category because I added a  tag. There are actually many unsourced claims in this article; please address the issue by adding citations instead of removing the tag. Fredrik Johansson 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Articles lacking sources]]: ?! 

message: A quick comment... are all those external links necessary? There are almost 30 links, some of which seem redundant. I think some should be removed (or at least organized). Comments? Westfall 07:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say leave them as it is. Robust Physique 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: external links

message: Our article on our favourite website has been vandalised by anons frequently, I would suggest semi-protection for this issue. Any comments? --Terence Ong 11:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect??