Talk:Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

Archives
	Archive 1 (discussion up to April 2003); Archive 2 (June-August 2003); Archive 3 (October 2003-March 2004); Hierarchical Linking Proposal (made in March 2004); Archive 4 (April-December 2004); Archive 5 (January-August 2005); Archive 6 (September-November 2005); Archive 7 (December 2005 -February 2006); Archive 8 (March-May 2006); Archive 9 (June-August 2006); Archive 10 (August-October 2006);

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:53, 22 October 2006

Wikipedia has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Template:FormerFA2 Template:FAOL

Wikipedia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

Template:Todo priority

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

How Long??

How long was wikipedia been around for

How long has Wikipedia been around for? If you read the article properly you will find it formally began on January 15, 2001. Harryboyles 04:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where

Where (on the globe) was wikipedia launched from?

I would say the answer is San Diego, California. Nupedia, the forerunner to Wikipedia, was originally in San Diego. According to a San Diego Union Tribune article I read recently, they were still based here when the idea to use a wiki was hatched. At some point, according to the same article, they moved to Florida because of cheaper rent for office space. Headquarters of Wikipedia is now in Florida. The article does not make clear whether the Wikipedia name was first used in San Diego. The article is here. Johntex\^talk 05:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brittanica - Wikipedia cold war

"...a 2005 comparison performed by the science journal Nature of sections of Wikipedia and the Encyclopædia Britannica found that the two were close in terms of the accuracy of their articles on the natural sciences. However, this study has now been challenged by Encyclopædia Britannica, who described it as "fatally flawed."

Ok, I've made two amendments to this, that questioned Brittanica's motivations for using such strong language against the idea that Wikipedia's accuracy rivals its own; both amendments were speedily removed. I see now that they may not have been worded as 'neutrally' as possible, so their deletion is fine with me.

I have to ask though, why do you suppose that Brittanica would use such strong language in their judgement on Wikipedia's purported merits? Could it perhaps be something to do with the fact that Brittanica's reputation (and profits) will undoubtably and inevitably suffar, as Wikipedia grows more mature, widespread, and universally accepted? Seems to me that a 'changing of the guard' is occuring, and that Brittanica's attempt to discredit Wikipedia should not go without comment.

Just my 2 pents. :) Chris 18:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I heard also recently that some university professors are calling WP "Wackypedia" and won't accept refs from it. That is unusual. I think the amazing state of Wikipedia and its self-correcting nature are unique. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Perhaps they called it "fatally flawed" because they actually believe it is. Or perhaps it was a phrase chosen by Britannica’s PR department. Chris, I would read Britannica's rebuttal first before making idle speculations. Many of their objections are quite legitimate. For example, Nature mixed articles from Compton's Encyclopedia in with Britannica because they're both published by the same company. Overall, Britannica remained civil in its objections and has every right to point out inaccuracies, just like you or I when we write letters to editors of magazines.

One thing that upset me is that Nature chose Britannica to compare to Wikipedia. There are other more reliable encyclopedias it could have chosen, like Encyclopedia Americana or World Book that have received perfect accuracy ratings in book reviews. I'm sure Wikipedia fans would have been in for a "fatal" disappointment if Nature had used those works, instead.--80.58.205.43 20:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All your points are quite valid; I am quite taken by the ineptitude of many of Wikipedia's articles. I am also impressed by the clarity, wit, and wisdom, and comprehensiveness of many others. Ultimately though, I'm interested in the general trend. Surely by 2010, Wikipedia will be a far more respected and admired resource, by academics, luddites, and Brittanica PR reps alike. Anyway, in the meantime, I think it's ironic that Brittanica would choose 'fatally flawed' in their statement, when it is Brittanica itself that is, in all likelihood 'fatally doomed'. Chris 15:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how do i post comments???....im assuming this is it.

im unsure about how to post comments on wikipedia, but im just gonna click submit and see what happens

English terms

No offense, but I live in the USA (Florida, to be exact) and I'm tired of all the England terms. I would like more American terms. I'm exhausted from all the English stuff. I need stuff to be more U.S.A. accurate.

You have two choices: ask to start a new Wikipedia about and for US specific, starting with a clone of the general Wikipedia; or start a campaign to have this Wikipedia converted to a USA-terminology specific one. You may get somewhere, but I suspect that you will get nowhere. If you feel strongly though, then you can but try :-) --Ordew 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like it converted USA-terminology specific. Now how would I get it done? How do I start the campaign? My sister doesn't believe me because of all the editors.

If you think you have the skills to run such a campaign, you should have the skills to find out how to do it!

Basic Idea

If users come to wikipedia with a topic (text/string?!) in mind, then they could have a good understanding about the topic and they could find some weblinks to go further. The content evolves as users use it.

Is that the basic idea?!

Forgot to add sig. :) --V4vijayakumar 12:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search string correction

Search string correction functionality is poor. Google’s “did you mean <right string>?” is more useful. If we enter “testdatabase” in search textbox, Wikipedia could not correct it to “test database”, but Google did it right. Not only this case, but in many cases Wikipedia fails to do the right thing. :(

Forgot to add sig. :) --V4vijayakumar 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Wikipedia answers

Online editable questions and answers could be a good idea. Let’s call it as “Wikipedia answers” (Google answers and Yahoo answers). Questions and evolving answers could be a great thing. As we can see from AOL user search strings release, most users enter questions as a search query. Expecting “Wikipedia answers” soon. :) --V4vijayakumar 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added new Wikipedia project. Is this right?! FYI, Wikipedia:WikiAnswers --V4vijayakumar 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Article Content

What's so bad about original research? Isn't that what most encyclopedias, online or offline, are comprised of? I mean, come on! The editors can do whatever they want with all the bad information, but what about the good information that happens to be original research? They get to filter out original research without trying to discern the real from the fake? What's up with that?!

Plural

Tongue-in-cheek pedantry: is the plural of "Wikipedia" either "Wikipediae" (with the ligature that I don't know how to type on the keyboard that I am using) or "Wikipedias", or are both admissable with respect to the manual of style ? I presume that both are OK due to the derivation of the word. Also, is Wikipedia a proper noun at all, I wonder, or should it be "wikipedia". I suspect that the growth of the various wikipedia projects means that a lower case word is now much more in order. After all, the word "dollar" is only capitalised if one is talking about a specific dollar, such as the Singapore Dollar (or even then ?). Answers only from the equally pedantic please :-) --Ordew 17:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedieaux, obviously. Chris Cunningham 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, indeed!

Funding

Could someone elaborate on the Funding section? I rembember wikpedia had a fund raising banner (like an ad), and reading media articles which mentioned WP's large bandwidth costs, but this page doesn't tell me much (bandwidth is $321K/quarter). What would be really interesting would be a profesional estimate of WP as a private company; top 20 on the web. - Peregrinefisher 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedian Portable

On Slashdot, I posted (as Pi_r_ed, but they don't allow brackets in names, so really Pi_r_[]ed) the following question:

"Why doesn't Wikipedia make their own mobile? It could be updated when connected to the computer, like an iPod, and I'm sure ads for it would replace any mentionings of donations..."

So, what do you at Wikipedia think? A Wikipedia "wPod" sort of device, with a touch screen to scroll and choose links, wi-fi to update itself, a keyboard post (or a T-Mobile_Sidekick type keyboard), for editing.

Of course, like I said above, Donations to Wikipedia would be a thing of the past. Of course, I ask for nothing else than recognition. Wikipedia has always been free, and for a small fee, can always be free. waittaminute... oh, nevermind. But, it got a (5, Interesting) on Slashdot, so it should go over well here to, right? Supermariorobot 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:52, 22 October 2006 view source Supermariorobot (talk \| contribs) 59 edits A Wikipedian Portable ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:53, 22 October 2006 view source Supermariorobot (talk \| contribs) 59 edits →A Wikipedian Portable Next edit →
Line 109:		Line 109:
	So, what do you at Wikipedia think? A Wikipedia "wPod" sort of device, with a touch screen to scroll and choose links, wi-fi to update itself, a keyboard post (or a [[T-Mobile_Sidekick]] type keyboard), for editing.		So, what do you at Wikipedia think? A Wikipedia "wPod" sort of device, with a touch screen to scroll and choose links, wi-fi to update itself, a keyboard post (or a [[T-Mobile_Sidekick]] type keyboard), for editing.

	Of course, like I said above, Donations to Wikipedia would be a thing of the past. Of course, I ask for nothing else than recognition. Wikipedia has always been free, and for a small fee, can always ''be'' free. waittaminute... oh, nevermind. But, it got a (5, Interesting) on Slashdot, so it should go over well here to, right?		Of course, like I said above, Donations to Wikipedia would be a thing of the past. Of course, I ask for nothing else than recognition. Wikipedia has always been free, and for a small fee, can always ''be'' free. waittaminute... oh, nevermind. But, it got a (5, Interesting) on Slashdot, so it should go over well here to, right? [[User:Supermariorobot\|Supermariorobot]] 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)