Talk:Wikipedia

Pronunciation

In the midwest, a lot of us pronounce the first two syllables of Wikipedia WIkI whilst pronouncing wiki WIki. I don't know if this should replace the first pronunciation (with a slashed i) in this article, be a third accepted pronunciation, or if it is considered either incorrect or much too trivial to bother with. but its ok, yolo!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.6.138 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 September 2012

Sheldrake-Chopra Wikipedia conspiracy theory

A source has been added[2] to the article which promotes a conspiracy theory that Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra have been spreading about "militant skeptics"[3]. There is currently no counterbalance. The issue has been debunked in The New Republic by Jerry Coyne.[4] In short, Sheldrake and Chopra don't seem to be aware of policies like WP:PSCI; they appear to believe that unflattering (but well-sourced) statements in their respective articles are due to mean people rather than policy requirements.

In Coyne's article there is a link to a BBC World Service segment in which Sheldrake promotes the conspiracy,[5] however the audio is no longer available. Among other statements in the broadcast, Sheldrake claimed that "guerrilla skeptics" have "got about five people banned so far", which may be verified as untrue by looking at Wikipedia histories. (One ban did occur, however, which was done with the consent of six administrators.[6]) I mention this for context only; original research can't go in the article, of course, even presumably straightforward facts of Wikipedia history pages.

Coyne mentioned there is an upcoming BBC broadcast covering the issue further.

Recently Chopra himself was tied to a frivolous conflict-of-interest complaint against a contributor to the Chopra Wikipedia page. Ironically, the person who brought the complaint is a researcher and copyeditor for Chopra, with the connection being revealed by an open letter Chopra published on his site (which was quickly taken down).[7]

I don't think I should edit the Wikipedia article because I am involved with the Sheldrake article; The New Republic even links to my response to Sheldrake.

The person who added the Chopra source is also involved with the Sheldrake article. vzaak (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be me. I added the material because it was notable criticism from a notable source. He may be wrong. But he said it and it's getting more and more press coverage. We look silly if there's a clamor about wikipedia in reliable sources and they're not reflected in our article about wikipedia. So far, there are (at the very least) a Chopra piece on HuffPo, a BBC piece quoting Sheldrake, and a refutation of Chopra and Sheldrake in The New Republic, written by a University of Chicago biology prof. There are some others listed on the Sheldrake talk page. David in DC (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Revenue Model of Wikipedia

Would you please add some information about revenue model of Wikipedia? I.yeckehzaare (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you're just making a general inquiry, you don't need to use the edit request template. Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wikimedia Foundation#Finances. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Coyne in New Republic

I believe it's not quite accurate to say that Coyne published his opinion about the Sheldrake issue in The New Republic, since it appears to only have been published in a New Republic blog. TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Please feel free to correct. Collaboration is good. David in DC (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no shortage of reliable sources

As of 2012, the majority of Wikipedia's most viewed media files were explicitly pornographic.[8] As of 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation has abandoned efforts to combat pornographic content on Wikipedia because its board members were not able to reach a consensus.[9]

The sources are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In 2010, it was reported that images of naked children were on Wikipedia.[10]

The edit did not match the edit summary. The edit summary was "Reverted. That's exactly what a decent encyclopaedia SHOULD contain". QuackGuru (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As of June, 2012, pornographic pictures and videos are the most popular content on Wikipedia.[11] QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/

Here is another source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/

Here is another source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia contains explicit content, and content that's not really a problem to most people but that some still find offensive. That's the nature of the project. It's no secret. There is no point adding little line after line to this article highlighting the bits that you don't like. The present content was achieved by consensus of many, after extensive discussion. If you have a specific suggestion to improve the wording of the article, constructively, not just repetitively, please make it clear what words you would like to add, and why, and await the thoughts of others on whether it should be added. (Simply being sourced is not enough.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"As of 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation has abandoned efforts to combat explicit pornographic content on Wikipedia because its board members were not able to reach a consensus.[12]"

This is a new source that you deleted for no reason. Please show me where this specific content was previously discussed about the Wikimedia Foundation has abandoned efforts to combat explicit pornographic content on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is already in the article:

Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic because Wikipedia is not censored. The policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of images of Muhammad in the English edition of its Muhammad article, citing this policy. The presence of politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in Wikipedia has led to the censorship of Wikipedia by national authorities in China,[181] Pakistan,[182] and the United Kingdom,[183] among other countries.

Wikipedia is not censored. It's acknowledged. No additional sources are needed stating there's material that could be deemed pornographic. It seems what's at issue here is that it seemed like something might have been done to filter sexually explicit material but it didn't happen? Again, no additional sources are needed for "Wikipedia still is not censored." But maybe I'm misunderstanding... --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That is dated material from 2008. We have a new source to update the article as of 2013 that was deleted for no reason. QuackGuru (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is not "dated material" that needs a new source. The big story you're proposing is a new source that says "no change, still not censored" in the most sensationalist way possible. You'd have more luck at Criticism of Wikipedia but it would still need more than FOX News and derivatives like IndiaTimes. --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant to this discussion. Where does it say in this article about Wikimedia Foundation's stance on sexually explicit material. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Not censored" means "Not censored". It does not mean "Not censored, except for some things that QuackGuru doesn't approve of". HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer the question: Where does it say in this article about Wikimedia Foundation's stance on sexually explicit material?

"Not censored", according to who? I think RS shows Wikipedia is not censored because of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is there a reason you want to censor this from the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material = the Wikipedia stance on offensive material. The article you posted is not the WMF stance, it's a sensationalized analysis of the non-developments of a story that's already covered. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know, though, so please link me to an internal page (i.e. on the Meta-Wiki) in which the WMF has documented a "new stance" without the help of Fox. --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation's official stance on this in not in the article. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material are not linked in the article and those links are not RS. If you don't like the source that is not a reason to delete the source. Your personal opinion about the source should not prevent you from improving this page. According to this page it looks like WMF has "no documented stance". This page is notcensored? The text according to RS is being censored. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

...Still ignoring the substance of the argument in favor of "you don't like it so you're censoring good information." So I guess this thread has gone as far as it can. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Still ignoring the substance of the argument? You did not provide any argument based on policy. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material are not RS. We don't use primary sources to replace reliable sources. The article I posted is the WMF position according to RS.

You still did not explain where in this article is Wikimedia Foundation's official stance. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it "Wikipedia is not censored." HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think Wikipedia is not censored because of the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolution:Controversial content -- Moxy (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Resolution:Controversial content link is not RS. This is not about if Wikipedia is not censored or censured. This is about the position of the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The big story I'm proposing is to include the WMF position. QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

How are we to address this curricular question of what is WMF position when their own words is not a reliable source to you? You seem not to understand that sexually explicit material falls under our censorship policies as does violent and religions content. If your asking what is WMF on child porn - we follow the law of the land - if you see a problem image please let us know. But you must understand that content as seen at Sex position is considered educational in our eyes.

So to quote the law of the land or the status quo as it were.....

The Wikimedia Foundation is a foundation under the law of the US federal state of Florida.(see Commons:General disclaimer). As such, its must comply with the laws of Florida, US. Additionally, Wikimedia's servers are physically located in Florida and Amsterdam

Since we are committed to complying with all laws and regulations, there are many classes of content which not permitted on Wikimedia servers.

For example, Commons does not host:

• Photographs that would be illegal to host because they constitute 'child pornography' as defined by relevant law.
• Photographs that would be illegal to host because they contain individuals under the age of majority.
• Photographs that would be illegal to host because the individual did not (or could not) give the necessary consent as required by law.
• Images that would be illegal to host because of the work's copyright status.

• Don't upload 'private' photographs of identifiable people without their consent

Main Policy: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people

Hope this helps-- Moxy (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC).

This is not about what is the WMF's position. This is about why is the WMF's position not allowed to be in the article. You are not proposing to include any of those sources in the article. I am proposing to include WMF's position in this article according to RS.

"Wales had earlier made a call for the foundation to implement a personal image filter in May 2011 and the Board of Trustees unanimously voted 10-0 in favor of the filter. However, the board cancelled plans for the image filter following protests against the decision, leaving pornography freely available to all site visitors."[13] QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is in the article very clearly to me - that said its clear not all get it and so we should dumb it down a bit for all to understand. As for this one proposal your mentioning we simply dont mention failed proposal often because they dont represent the communities position. I am guessing you believe that an image filter system would have been a good idea...but as you can see it was outright rejected. You seen to be trying to insert that Wikipedia does not care about the topic....when in fact there has been many talks and proposals about the topic. Would be best to simply talk about what is over what was never to be. -- Moxy (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You claim "When in fact there has been many talks and proposals about the topic." I don't see this in the article.

It is in the article very clearly to you? Please point where in this article it states WMF's position. QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 November 2013

I want to edit the Wikipedia page. 108.206.61.40 (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Stfg (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Grambling State University

Grambling State University is in Grambling, Louisiana. Please correct your info you handout — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.80.63.105 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What info needs to be corrected? The article on Grambling State University places the institution in Grambling, Louisiana. This page is for discussing improvements to Wikipedia's article about itself, which contains no mention of the university. Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not responsible for use others may make of the material e.g. on handouts.--Auric talk 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

MIT paragraph

I think we have to talk about this MIT paragraph

The 22 October 2013 essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's Technology Review titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" was accurate in describing Sue Gardner, the departing executive director of the foundation, and her progress while at the foundation. "On Gardner's watch, the funds the Wikimedia Foundation has raised each year to support the site have grown from $4 million to $45 million."[152] Simonite also identified the report on the decreasing number of editors at Wikipedia by Aaron Halfaker, a grad student at the University of Minnesota (also a contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation), where it was stated that, "It looks like Wikipedia is strangling itself for this resource of new editors." Within the essay, Simonite further cited the two attempts at amelioration of the attrition of editors by creating a largely under-used "Visual Editor" and promoting the novelty of largely unused "Thank" tabs as substantially ill-fated projects at Wikipedia.[153] Simonite then quoted Oliver Moran, an Irish software engineer and a top administrator at Wikipedia as referring to the negative aspects of the "bureaucratic culture that has formed around the rules and guidelines on contributing, which have become labyrinthine over the years." In Moran's words, "That is the real barrier: policy creep."[154]

There is nothing wrong with this per se. It's just away too long. A countless number of pieces have been written on Wikipedia. Giving this much attention to just a single piece is "undue weight". -- Taku (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. There are 3 short sentences in the edit from the MIT article: (1) Report of Sue Gardner getting more money for Wikipedia (certainly you are not objecting to this being included); (2) Quote from Halfaker report which was supported by Wikimedia, paid by Wikimedia; and (3) Quote from senior Admin at Wikipedia being quoted on his experience with possible yellow flags. If you have an objection to one or the other then indicate which one is objectionable or offer to shorten it. I shall repost with url to make the review easier. BillMoyers (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved November 30, 2013. If the text was too long it can be shortened. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the issue here. Can you at least respond to some of my questions/concerns? For example, you can put it to History of Wikipedia, where a use of several quotes makes more sense. -- Taku (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, yet consensus does not seem to be with you on this and the new edit by User:QG is reposted. In response to your question, the quotes are both current and timely, not "historical". If any one of the 3 quotes needs to be shorter then try to edit it or add your own quote. BillMoyers (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted again. @BillMoyers:, please see WP:BRD. You were bold in adding a big block of text. Someone else didn't think it was appropriate and reverted. That's when you go to the talk page to discuss it before adding it back. At this point you're edit warring and do not seem to understand the term "WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]" as it is used here. Also, the point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia -- that is, timeless, not news -- so "timely" is not a good argument for inclusion. I think the article is worthy of mention, but Taku might be right that it's a little too much. I don't think anybody is saying it's not a good and relevant article. @TakuyaMurata: - do you have an idea how to better integrate it into the article? That does seem to be preferable to cutting it altogether. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites. No edit warring here, and your entering the discussion changes agreement with User:QuackGuru status. In the above text I have already offered to shorten the text on the basis of either of the quotes (i), (ii), or (iii), as designated above. Which one is objectionable? Offer a suggestion to discuss. Same offer to you as for Takuya, if you have an edit then try it or add your own preferred quote from the linked M.I.T. article. Everyone seems to agree that the M.I.T. article itself is current and well-researched. BillMoyers (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the MIT piece is already mentioned at the end of the paragraph before the newly put paragraph. The question is if we want to expand the covergage. As I said, the length and use of the quotes are problematic; this article is much more about the history of Wikipedia after all. Also, the piece itself, while well-written, is not particularly interesting: it just repeats known-stuff. I'm not against the addition per se, but so far I failed to see a strong argument for it. -- Taku (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The MIT piece is notable and there is a major shift downward in editors. This makes it notable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? -- Taku (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I also rewrote the text. It is only one sentence now. QuackGuru (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also issues with the way the contribution is phrased. It makes it seem that a journalist claiming something makes it the truth. There's not a lot of research in this area. The idea that there's been a 30% reduction in editor contributions is I think reasonably well sourced, but the extra claim that this means that Wikipedia is dying in some sense is a very big jump. It's not enough to repeat people's claims for this, you have to find hard evidence, but it's not there; there are no secondary sources for Wikipedia dying, or that it's, in particular, creeping regulations that are turning people away. Wikipedia is based on academic analysis, and there doesn't seem to be agreement on this. The simplest explanation for this is that there were a whole bunch of obvious, missing articles in Wikipedia in 2007, and people jumped in and helped out; even a bad new article is better than no article. Right now, there's few new major articles to be created, and people are finding it harder to contribute; that's to be completely expected. It's always harder to write complete, very good articles than simple, short articles that miss out half the information, and not everyone can be bothered, or have the knowledge, skills or time.Teapeat (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to stated. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

" As of October 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation has struggled to find new editors as a resource.[152]

This sentence was deleted. It may be too complicated to explain with one sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if Wikipedia is dying or not. The traffic to Wikipedia has not decreased, unlike the number of the editors; so, it's hard to conclude Wikipedia will be gone anytime soon. In any case, that's not relevant to us when writing this article. It is relevant, however, that for some time by now there have been several journalistic pieces written on the decline of the number of the editors. This is beyond disputes and has to be clearly mentioned. But I thought the current coverage is a good enough. As said, the MIT piece doesn't give something that we didn't know before. I deleted the sentence of QuackGuru, since again this is already mentioned in the article. It is of course "notable", but we already have a link to it both in the main text as well as in the "further reading" section. -- Taku (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)