Jump to content

Talk:Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.212.238.87 (talk) at 17:01, 3 January 2021 (→RCMP "crooked" cult or do they really want to "Serve and Protect (whom)": WP:NOTFORUM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleWikipedia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
On this day...Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 1, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
September 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 25, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 12, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 15, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
July 21, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
July 26, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
November 7, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2014Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
September 5, 2014Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 15, 2005.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article

Outdated reliability discussion in lede

The last two paragraphs in this article's lede, which discuss Wikipedia's reliability, are imo outdated. It doesn't seem reasonable to, in 2019, reference a Nature study conducted on Wikipedia in 2005, back when the project was in its infancy. Further, the praise for and criticism of Wikipedia should be referenced with more than just individual examples and primarily with more recent examples. Currently, it basically has a bunch of really old criticism, and then reflects the encyclopedia's improving reputation by just jumping to the instances where other social networks decided to use it for fact checking in the past few years. I hope some editors with the inclination to work on this page will address these issues. - Sdkb (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE: A sentence in lead, "Facebook announced..."

The lead currently has this sentence:

"Facebook announced that by 2017 it would help readers detect fake news by suggesting links to related Wikipedia articles. YouTube announced a similar plan in 2018."

I think we might want to update this or remove it if needed. I don't really have the time right now, but thought I would point it out. --Pythagimedes (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagimedes, I just added a hidden text comment before seeing this. Per WP:ANNOUNCED, we should use the date Facebook actually started doing so; saying "would by" is outdated. I do think it's a helpful concrete indicator of the way Wikipedia's reputation has changed in the 2010s, something the lead otherwise struggles to get across (I just added one sentence on it, but more modifications are needed). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It'd also be good to consolidate Facebook YouTube, and any other major sites doing similar into a single sentence. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal: Predictions of the end of Wikipedia --> Wikipedia

Weak consensus against merge. There is a strong numerical majority for opposes, roughly 15 to 6. However, some opposes were discounted because they were predicated on the idea that the prior AfD found consensus against a merge, something that the closer clarified was not the case. Subsequently, the discussion came down to those in favor of a merge to Criticism of Wikipedia, who argued mainly that Predictions of the end of Wikipedia would fit within that page, and those opposed to such a merge, who argued that the focus of those two pages is distinct, and that the topic is significant enough to stand on its own. Both sides made solid arguments, but ultimately more editors were persuaded by the opposes. Overall, this was a fairly messy discussion (both because of the AfD question and because of the initial proposal to merge to Wikipedia rather than Criticism of Wikipedia) and could potentially benefit from revisiting down the road. For now, though, this is ready to be put to rest. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal to discuss: Predictions of the end of Wikipedia --> Wikipedia

An admin recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Wikipedia as "Keep", later adding a clarifying statement for more discussion at a talk page. Closing admin concluded, "The result was keep. Obvious consensus not to delete the content outright. Whether it should be merged or left alone is a question that can be answered outside of AfD." A conflict arose and further discussion is therefore needed, as an editor summarily redirected the page into Wikipedia, with no further discussion about this action. Bringing to discussion, here, per WP:MERGE. Right cite (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge, clear consensus for "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Wikipedia. Per reasons already discussed in detail at the deletion discussion page. Right cite (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is premature. I have no particular desire to merge any content from there to here, although I have no opposition if anyone wants to do so on their own (I was advocating for a plain redirect). Nonetheless, there was a clear consensus at the AFD not to keep an article in place. I'll be listing it at DRV in the near future, so this should probably wait until then at least. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge: The subject doesn't particularly fit into the Wikipedia article, and the decision at AfD was Keep. I fail to understand why the AfD nominator seems to think the decision was completely opposite of what it was. Normal Op (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said elsewhere, everyone that actually looked at any of the sources in detail came to the same conclusion – that none of them were making any predictions about anything, and that none of them were talking about the end of Wikipedia. The topic has zero sources supporting it, so a keep wasn't warranted. Strength of argument trumps thoughtless keep voting, regardless of the actual numbers. People were willing to support selective merging of basic statements elsewhere, hence the reluctance for an outright deletion, but as far ass the article itself, there's nothing there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. But not to Wikipedia. This should be merged to Criticism of Wikipedia, because that's clearly what it is. A prediction of WP's failure is a criticism of its model and its usefulness. This article doesn't need to be a stand-alone spin-off.
Beyond that, Criticism of Wikipedia is where the merge !votes at the deletion discussion[2] wanted it to go. (The closing notes indicate that those editor's !vote was considered a "keep" for the purpose of closing the deletion discussion, so they're a facet of that consensus.) ApLundell (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with User:Elliot321. Recognition of Entropy is not necessarily criticism. We can judicially notice that everything has an expiration date, even if it is unknown or unknowable. These articles cover different ground entirely. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Gender Bias" Reads (Readability Issue) as the Primary Criticism of Wikipedia

I am outlining a structural concern within the article (Wikipedia) as written.

Third Paragraph Line One acknowledges criticism of Wikipedia but it does so incorrectly and therefore a change is needed

Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias
What the above sentence is saying, in its placement and context, is that gender bias is second only to accuracy.

This differs from The highly referenced Article "Criticism of Wikipedia" [1]

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political and national lines. In addition conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven application of policies.
The main point of that article as written; Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes.
Gender Bias is not mentioned until the third sentence, as placed it is of minor importance. Its importance is further diluted because other concerns are mentioned.
The main point may be in the second sentence of the paragraph, The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing.

Conclusion Recommendation - Request for Comments

A contra-view of the topic in the form of criticism should be and is included in the third paragraph.
Wikipedia should maintain a NPOV when it talks about itself
The first sentence of the third paragraph should be changed as to be consistent with (the more accurate) "Criticism of Wikipedia Page" Zugzwangerone (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Your comments would be easier to understand if they were ten times shorter—try omitting all the words that are unrelated to text in the article and a proposal to change that text. Use bold very rarely. For your information, this article follows the recommendation at WP:LEAD where the lead (introduction) does not repeat the references which are later in the article. Those references are at Wikipedia#Sexism which points to Gender bias on Wikipedia. A widely followed principle of articles is known as "other stuff". That means that other articles do not necessarily dictate what should happen in this article. Instead, any proposal for a change here should be based on its merits and the reliable sources to be used (which do not include any other Wikipedia article). Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Error in the Wikipedia Wikipedia Page

"The article remained uncorrected for four months.[76] Uncorrect should be incorrect" Adam Rasool (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncorrected" is an actual word.Crboyer (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crboyer, I will have to disagree with that. Dictionary.com does not state uncorrect as a synonym of incorrect, and when I do a Google search a grammar bot immediately switches "uncorrect" with "incorrect," the definition being archaic. As "incorrect" sounds more natural and is a more common word, I will have to agree with Rasool. GeraldWL 13:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, did you even bother trying to enter "uncorrected", which is the word in question here? It is a perfectly good English word: "correct" is the verb, and to leave an article "uncorrected" is to avoid correcting it. "Incorrect" would change the meaning of the sentence, and be, well, incorrect. Elizium23 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23, "in" and "un" have similar meanings, and don't see how it changes the meaning of the sentence. "Uncorrected" is, additionally, making the prose unnatural. Now I get the difference between "incorrect" (*uncorrect) and "uncorrected," however I prefer "incorrected" since it's more natural-- "uncorrected" sounds... stiff. GeraldWL 14:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23, update: I have decided to self-revert, as "incorrected" turned out to be false. English, motherfuck! GeraldWL 14:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At meta:Wikipedia_20/Media, there are some links on research about Wikipedia that might help us expand this page. See particularly https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-wikipedia-keeps-political-discourse-from-turning-ugly and https://hbr.org/2019/07/are-politically-diverse-teams-more-effective. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&oldid=998063192"