Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Good and bad?

Can someone explain this line to me: "The number of Wikipedians (both good and bad) has grown to over 5 million" I'm curious as to why Wikipedians can be good and bad. I know users can have an agenda, but this just seems poorly worded. That'd be like saying "America has 300 million people, (both English speaking and non)." --Ilstuguy 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Richard001 09:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Productive and malignant wikipedians. It's emotive and effecient. --No Brainer 07:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Retiring a user name

Is it acceptable to "retire" a user name if one is upfront about it? What is the etiquette for doing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckblogger (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The best way is to have your account name changed at Wikipedia:Changing username. This will also preserve your edit history. Feezo (Talk) 11:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Question re corporate rather than individual user accounts

What is the policy about organisations having accounts? I had understood accounts were for individuals. Paul foord (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames#Sharing accounts is prohibited. More details at m:Role accounts and Wikipedia:BFAQ#Can my company have an account?. Feezo (Talk) 11:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Groups of Wikipedians in other Social Networks

Hi fellow Wikipedians! I created a group for people like y'all on LinkedIn. Everybody who is there yet or plans to be in forementioned social network is invited to join. Perhaps we can make a category here (and/or @ meta) as well if we have a substantial number of followers. Needless to say that LinkedIn is just an example. The same counts or will count for Twitter, Facebook et al. Patio (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A serious problem

I don't know who to contact about this, but it looks like a lot of people are registering a lot of spam names that need cleaning up. The best example is the list here. That's just the tip of the iceberg of course. I need to find an administrator who has the power to delete those. Tyciol (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tyciol,
Refer to Administrator help needed
Patio (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you contribute?

I am just asking any user of wikipedia why you contribute? If you are an avid contributor, what motivates you to be a volunteer to wikipedia?129.89.107.135 19:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)english student

Hi. I'm not sure this is the right place, but I'll reply anyway. I joined Wikipedia in October of 2006. Why I contribute starts with how I discovered Wikipedia. I was searching for lots of stuff on the Internet, back in the times when I was wanting to find a place with as much info as I need. Now, sometimes searching from a web engine didn't really help. I really needed a place where I can find all the info in one place, in one site. Now, a long time ago, I really wanted to know what E=MC2 meant, and most of all, in unit-specific terms. I tried searching for weeks, even months on the Internet, but for some reason I didn't find the answer I wanted. Now, a lot of the people I had on MSN had this robot called SmarterChild in their contact list. So, I searched for it on Ask.com, my favorite search engine at the time, and bingo — the link at the very top of the page was Wikipedia. As I explored it further, I realised that Wikipedia knew everything. I looked for E=MC2, and I found what I'd been looking for all that time, a unit specific measurement! As I searched for more and more stuff, I instantly became interested. Now, I knew I could edit, but I didn't want to yet. The first time I tried to edit, it warned that my IP adress would be shown. I looked into this problem further, on Wikipedia of course, and even wrote a short article about Wikipedia on my computer. Then, after months of searching, I decided that I might create an account after all. One of the articles I wanted to contribute to when I finally created an account, was "list of meteor showers". I discovered that redlinks meant that there was no article, and I think more of the articles needed to be made. However, who otehr than me would make them? I started taking the Wikiholic test, and I nearly got to a thousand points even before I created an account. I was worried that making an account would expose my IP adress to the developers, but then I decided: Someone told me that all websites collect your IP adress anyway, there are already so many contributors, and the small number of developers and checkusers that can see my IP adress is so small. So, I finally decided to get an account. Since I wanted to choose my name carefully, it took me around half an hour to choose my username and password. Then, I got to the editting. Finally, after a week or two, someone actually welcomed me. I mean, you get to collaborate with others about articles, and improve the most-visited web encyclopedia on the planet, what better (and more relatively useful, both for yourself and others) site is there? There have been a few mishaps and perhaps even stresful moments, but it's all worth it in the long run. So, a year later, here I am, with more than 2000 edits and over 10000 points on the Wikiholic test. I recently joined a few related sites, like interwikis and sister projects. I find that there isn't always much to do, but at least there's a place where I can spend my time (and not just waste it) when there is not much else to do. Make sure you understand that too much computer time can cause health issues, though. So, if you can join and make constructive edits, Wikipedia welcomes you. Help us build the greatest encyclopedia ever attempted! Hope this answers most of your question. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks194.116.199.218 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

International Conferences on Intelligent Agent & Multi-Agent Systems 2009

IAMA 2009 Call for Papers International Conferences on Intelligent Agent & Multi-Agent Systems 2009

22 - 24 July 2009, Chennai, India http://www.iama09.org/ Submission Deadline: 14 April, 2009

The International Conference on Intelligent Agent & Multi-Agent Systems (IAMA 2009) will be held in Chennai, India, during 22-24 July 2009 and organized by the Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Aarupadai Veedu Institute of Technology (www.avit.ac.in). Over the years, IAMA is a forum for disseminating the latest research results in Intelligent Agent & Multi-Agent Systems.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Agent-Oriented Software Engineering • Agent Languages and Technologies • Optimization in Multi-Agent Systems • Agent & Distributed Resources Optimization • Multi-Agent Based Simulation • Agent for Autonomy-Oriented Computing • Service-Oriented Computing: Agents, Semantics, and Engineering • Multi-Agent Based Simulation Systems • Agent Knowledge Representation and Services Discovery • Adaptive Learning & Planning Agents and Multi-Agent Systems • Agent Interaction Protocols • Agent Ontological / Semantic interactions • Agent Argumentation Theories • Agent Design Mechanism • Agent & Auctions and Related Structures • Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems • Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations • Models and Methods for Multi-Robot Systems • Programming Multi-Agent Systems • Agent Implementation Models • Agent-based Technologies and Applications for Enterprise Interoperability Agents in Traffic and Transportation • Agent Technology for Sensor Networks • Agents and Peer to Peer Computing • Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce • Emergence Intelligence of Networked Agents • Soft Computing Models for Agents • Agent Based Learning Mechanisms • Agent Based Web Information Systems, Problems and Solutions. • Agent Collective Decision Making Personalization Agents. • Agent Semantics and Ontology Engineering • Agent Ontology-Based Information Extraction and Retrieval • Agent-Based Web Mining • Agent Visualization of Information and Knowledge • Agent Meta-Knowledge Discovery and Representation • Agent Social Interaction Paradigms • Goal-Directed Services Support Agents • Agent Based Web Information Retrieval and Filtering • Agent Based Collaborative Filtering and Recommendation • Agent Based Geographic Information Retrieval • Agent Clustering-Based Recommender Systems • Agent Social Networks and Social Intelligence • Agent and Social Computing • Agent Based Social and Psychological Issues • Web Agents & Global Information Foraging Agent Networks and Topologies • Agent Web Service Reconfiguration • Agent Web Service Workflow Composition • Intelligent Human-Web Interaction Agent Systems • Adaptive Agent-Based Web Interfaces Mobile Agents • Agent Behavior Modeling • Agents & Data Warehousing • Agents & Web Security, Integrity, Privacy and Trust • Intelligent Agent e-Technology • Business Intelligence & Agent Technology • Web-Based Direct Marketing & Agent Computing • CRM & Agent Computing • Agent Groups and Teams • Agent Norms and Normative Behavior • Agent Commitments • Agent & Organizations and Institutions • Agent for Organizational Learning • Agent for Organizational Planning • Agent & Open Systems • Agent Applications - Digital Libraries,E-Publishing, E-Business, E-Finance,E-Learning, E-Medicine, E-Government • Agents for Electrical, Electronics, Mechanical and other Applications • Human Emotion and Agent Systems

PAPER SUBMISSION

A submission should report on original, previously unpublished research not being concurrently considered elsewhere for publication in a journal or conference. This conference is soliciting regular papers (8 pages), short papers (6 pages) and extended abstracts (2 pages). These limits include text, figures and references. Extended abstracts are encouraged as a mechanism for the timely reporting of interesting but preliminary work, that may not as yet have the level of evaluation or detail that would be expected for a regular paper.

Reviews will be double blind, therefore authors are requested to avoid including anything that can be used to reveal their identity. Submissions will be peer reviewed rigorously and evaluated on the basis of adherence, originality, soundness, significance, presentation, understanding of the state of the art, and overall quality of their technical contribution.

Papers should be single-spaced pages using at least 11-point fonts and one-inch margins on all sides on A4/Letter size pages. All papers must be submitted electronically through the Program Chair e-mail. Accepted regular and short papers will receive a slot for oral presentation in the conference. In addition all regular, short and extended abstracts will be presented in poster sessions and appear in the conference proceedings. The Springer is expected to publish the conference proceedings with accepted papers in the LNCS series. Some papers that are judged to have limited merit may be accepted as short papers. At the time of submission, authors should indicate if they wish to have their paper considered as a short paper if it is not accepted as a regular paper. At least one author of each accepted paper must register, attend the conference and present the paper. Details of the paper submission including format methods are available on the conference website (http://www.iama09.org).

BEST PAPER AWARD

IAMA 2009 will have Best Paper Awards, one for each track. The Program Committee may decline to make an award.

Important Dates: Electronic abstract submission deadline: 14 Mar, 2009 Electronic paper submission deadline: 14 April, 2009 Notification of Acceptance : 14 May, 2009 Final Camera-Ready Manuscript : 26 June, 2009

Please Forward this Notice to Faculty Members and Researchers Scholars of the Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.98.191 (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ip

are ips wikipedians too? --Fangoriously (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, IPs are editors/users/Wikipedians too. A Wikipedian is anyone "who write[s] and edit[s] the pages for Wikipedia". Once one clicks the edit link, he or she is a Wikipedian. hmwithτ 14:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How Do Most Wikipedians Work?

Do most Wikipedians do all off their editing online at one sitting, or gather information and create their edits offline in a text-editor or other software and then post it to the site once they're satisfied it is error-free and ready for prime-time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonchipper (talk • contribs) 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Some do it one way, some do the other. Which one is more prevalent? Who knows? You'd have to do a survey of all content writers to find out. But here's the best answer I can give you: "It depends." -- Ϫ 17:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian, Wikipedist.. what next?

Wikipedish? Wikipedese? :P - OlEnglish (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But wikipedist would be better name.----Extra999 (talk)14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by articles created

Anyone know if there exists a list somewhere of Wikipedians ordered by the number of articles or pages (redirects etc.) they created? Can this be easily done? -- Ϫ 02:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count.  Frank  |  talk  04:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are there so many non-editing users?

This Special article claims that there are 11,500,000 named accounts on the English wikipedia and that 300,000 new named accounts are being created every month. This plot seems to agree with the latter claim. However this table says that there are only 2,700,000 users who did at least one edit. So it would seem that some 8,800,000 named accounts that were created (80% of the total) never made a single edit. Is this correct? If so, does anyone know why? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They just probably create one and forget to edit. Do you know if this accounts for people with SULs that edit other encyclopedias besides en.wiki? bibliomaniac15 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hah! Just remembered that I have accounts on ~100 wikis which I never edited directly until recently. These all come from a run verifying 100s of interwiki links, obviously autocreated when I compared the corresponding pages. Writing this I realize another reason for zero edit-accounts: They use it to customize their reading experience!
So there you have it: Read-only accounts are created by lurkers manually or via SUL. Would be interesting to know the ratio. Paradoctor (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the German wikipedia has 940,000 users, the French one about 750,000, and the Latin one about 22,000. So either there are less than 20,000 SUL accounts, or SUL users are not automatically counted on every wikipedia.
Suppose that a SUL user is counted as a user of wikipedia XX only after his first access to that wikipedia. Presumably many users of non-English wikipedias ocasionally consult the English one, but not the other way around. Then it is still possible that many of those zero-edit users are SUL users of other wikipedias. Yes, it woudl be nice to knwo the truth. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
"not automatically counted": Correct: "your account is automatically created at each additional Wikimedia project the first time you log on to that wiki with your existing username and password, or the first time you visit it while logged on to a wiki where you already have an account"m:Help:Unified login Paradoctor (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Many IPs even convert when they find abusive reports coming to them or messages coming to them to convert. Some even create as a part of their fun. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Over 9 million Wikipedians

Who was user number 9,000,000? Any way of finding this out? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In theory, you could use the Special:Log/newusers page, click "earliest", the either manually and using some kind of a bot, count from one to 9 million. However, that only includes accounts created after September 9, 2005. hmwithτ 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
According to Special:Statistics, there are 10,205,262 accounts, so the 9 millionth was not created long ago. hmwithτ 14:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm better question would be who's number 10,000,000? -- Ϫ 17:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Mm, It has now reached to 48,402,550, so better 13,000,000. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you become a Wikipedian?

Hi. I was just wondering, how do you become a Wikipedian? The page doesn't explain, and also, what exactly does a Wikipedian do? Thanks for replying! --Wiki: wikiPEDIA rules! 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

By helping to write and edit Wikipedia! That's what we're here for. There's no offical "Wikipedian" designation. Some suggestions on ways you can help: Wikipedia:Community Portal#Todo. You might also want to take a look at our welcome page for newcomers — and by the way, you can auto-sign your talk page posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Feezo (Talk) 04:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Create an account and start editing! That's how you become a Wikipedian. AdjustShift (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
By asking that question, I would say that you've become a Wikipedian! ConconJondor (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How many of us are there?

Special:Statistics says there are 5,773,899 account holders. We would be wasting our time trying to count the IPs, but I'd like to know roughly how many reasonably active users currently exist. There will of course be sock puppets, second accounts, one edit accounts, those that have been blocked, and numerous account holders that don't edit anymore and haven't done so for months or even years. But it would be good to have an estimate of how many real Wikipedians there are out there. Any suggestions for getting such information, or trying to make an estimate? Richard001 07:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, here's an idea: Go to Special:Listusers, which lists all account holders, then try to take a reasonably large sample. The problem is getting a random sample: it needs to be representative, and at the beginning we clearly have those who simply want to be at the start of the list. The same problem might occur at A, B etc, so start somewhere arbitrary is probably the best method. Then one would have to define what one meant by a genuine user, which is somewhat subjective. Say at least five edits and active in the last 2 months, for example. Finally, one would go through and check each user. If only a small fraction meet the criteria, however, there is a larger chance of random error, so a bigger sample size would be needed. Should be possible, though I haven't got time to do it myself now, and I have no idea what criteria I would use. Might be an interesting exercise though, and I'm sure people would be interested in the results. Richard001 07:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I seemed to miss this link: [1]. It's a bit out of date, but there seem to be about 40,000 active active users on en. in any given month, and about 4000 users who are making several edits each day. Hard to tell how many of the 40k are non-vandals, but it gives a reasonably good overview. Richard001 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think trying to qualify a "real" Wikipedian cheapens the concept of a Wikipedian....a Wikipedian is not someone who meets Richard001's criteria of a "reasonably active user"...a Wikipedian is someone who has contributed to Wikipedia in ANY way, whether it be discussing an article, making an edit, or a whole host of other things that some Wikipedia users might NEVER see. Trying to classify and rank Wikipedians (which is what your idea does) by whether they contribute enough to qualify as a "real Wikipedian" is fraught with folly.Introspectacle (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Motivations for Wikipedians

Hi all, I have been doing a project on motivations for contributions to Wikipedia and have been going through much of the sociological and economics research on the topic. I have obviously been using Wikipedia to help gather statistics on the demographics of user contribution, structure of the community, ect. Anyway, I keep on coming back to this page and the last line in the motivations section is really starting to bother me. At the end of the line, it reads Wikipedian's are not primarily motivated by recognition or reputation and then cites an academic article by Yang. The problem is that this article directly contradicts this line (or at least how it is written). The article states that a major source for online contributions comes in the form of social incentives derived from a smaller community behind the projects. Since, I am not a Wikipedian and frankly do not feel its my place to edit a page that describes the core dedicated group of users, I am not going to edit it. However, it would be great to see the section rewritten so that its much more clear and less misleading. That, or find a different source.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.101.14 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Personality study contains contradictory information

Although this might be construed as original research, I think this is worth pointing out in the interests of accuracy. The study published in 'Cyberpsychology and behavior' about the personality traits of wikipedians contains contradictory information in regard to openness to experience. According to the table of descriptive statistics provided in the paper, wikipedians are actually higher than non-members in openness, yet even though they explicitly say "see Table 1 for results" they state that members are lower than non-members in this trait and then go on to speculate why. Obviously, their conclusions in this regard don't make much sense because they have the facts back-to-front. Seemingly dozens of blogs (not to mention New Scientist!) have reposted their conclusions as they were true. This egregious error was actually picked up by a wikipedian a few years ago - see the reply by nihiltres to this blog post.[2] I don't know if any published work has actually commented on this discrepancy, so I'll let the current article stand, much as I hate to see inaccurate information being promulgated.--Smcg8374 (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Role of company's; NFL payment to Wikipedia

To 7 billion people on planet earth, there is a passionate sport called Football. To Wikipedians it's however called soccer, how come? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.233.139 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Failure to distinguish between English and all Wikipedias

The page is useful but mixes statements about the English Wikipedia and all Wikipedias and fails to make it clear which ones refer to which. An addition to the lead followed by use of say "(English)" and "(all)" would fix this. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Vague time span

There are instance where time is ambiguous, we need to provide explicit dated for something so dynamic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick (admittedly frivolous) question..

Just wondering - is it possible to actually purchase a model of the logo such as is seen in this article? As Wikipedia's indisputable #1 fan, I would most certainly like one... RIGHT NOW!!! Incidentally... does Wikipedia actually have any kind of merchandise? I guess my initial estimation is that it's somewhat antithetical to the aims and general ethos of the project, but I don't know for sure. Forgive me, but like I said, question is frivolous! Jeez! Take a chill pill! You Wikipedians can be so cantankerous sometimes... hehe. Peace. Psychonavigation (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Try the Wikimedia Shop. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Gender - male/women should be changed to male/female for consistency. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A Dozen Editors of the Week

The Editor of the Week sub-Project is proud to announce the twelfth recipient, User:Surtsicna. Would you like to nominate a fellow editor. Do you know of an editor that just works in the trenches and doesn't get the acknowlegemnet they are entitled to. Dont hesitate to Nominate. the nomination page|You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 07:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Maths?

"59% of the editors are aged 17 to 40, more specifically, 14% of the editors are in the group 18–21, 13% are 22–29, and 19% are 30–39. 28% editors are aged 40+, whereas 13% are aged 17 and under." Those percentages do not add up in any way. Andreas JN466 03:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll ping editors who added them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I fixed that. 26% of editors are aged 22-29 (as of the 2011 survey), the other numbers are right. Sideways713 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironic Statement is Ironic

"The significant and stable under-representation of women results in persistently unbalanced coverage (e.g. articles related to football are much more developed than articles related to motherhood) in Wikipedia." I'm a woman. At one point, I contributed to articles about Arsenal FC. I have a kid. I have never written on motherhood.

Here's a suggestion: perhaps the sexist assumptions in that quote, from beginning to end, exemplify many of the reasons that there are fewer female contributors. JHK (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians are volunteers

Wikipedians are volunteers - yet it never says that on the page. In fact, Wikipedians are the largest body of online volunteers, making this the largest example of Virtual volunteering - but there's no reference here on the page to that. I think there needs to be something on the page that says these people volunteer their time, or, explicitly, that they are volunteers, and I think there should be a see also section on the page that links to the related topics of Virtual volunteering, crowdsourcing and swarm intelligence, to show that this is part of a larger family of online volunteer action. There should also be a link somewhere on the page to Wikipedia:Wikipedian_of_the_year.

Jcravens42 (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft edits to the lede

I'd like to make the following revision to the lede. Besides general copyediting, the main changes are (1) adding "editors" as a headword, (2) removing mentions of the full list of users and the random user link, which really aren't that useful, and (3) adding a new sentence on Wikipedians' tasks and beliefs.

Wikipedians or editors are the volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia's articles, unlike readers who simply read them. Anyone—including you—can become a Wikipedian by boldly making changes when they find something that can be improved. To learn more about how, you can check out the basic editing tutorial or the more detailed manual.

Wikipedians do a wide variety of tasks, from fixing typos and removing vandalism to resolving disputes and perfecting content, but unite in a desire to make human knowledge available to every person on the planet.

—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I reckon...

I reckon that there should be another vote section that says "I participate in Wikipedia to make Wikipedia better". Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

How many eligible to vote here?

There is a statement "About 300,000 editors have edited Wikipedia more than 10 times.[citation needed]". We need a citation for that. We also need to list another important statistic: how many editors qualify to vote, or at least an example for some particular election, e.g. for Wikipedia Steward[3]. According to [4], that currently requires 600 edits, 50 of which are recent. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I ran a query and found 12,043 users who matched the criteria. Regretfully, I couldn't get the query to run in 10 minutes on quarry, so I used the analytics servers to do it. You can download the dataset here: http://datasets.wikimedia.org/public-datasets/enwiki/etc/enwiki.eligible_user.tsv
Here's the query for the curious.
SELECT user_id, user_name, COUNT(rev_id) AS recent_revisions  
FROM revision  
INNER JOIN user ON user_id = rev_user
WHERE user_editcount >= 600 AND 
      user_id NOT IN (SELECT ug_user FROM user_groups WHERE ug_group = 'bot') AND 
      rev_timestamp > "20140811" 
GROUP BY user_id
HAVING recent_revisions >= 50;
--EpochFail (talk • contribs) 01:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Note that (at least based on the dataset name), this is only for editors who qualify based on their edits on the English Wikipedia. I think that several times than many editors qualify to vote in the steward elections based on edits on other Wikipedias.
Also, note that you can do a query on quarry which shows how many editors have 600 edits or more on en.wikipedia, excluding bots, thanks to this code from PiRSquared17, which you can run as seen at http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/1942. That shows that 53260 editors from the English wikipedia met the first hurdle of 600 overall edits. So about a quarter of those who met the first hurdle also met the second hurdle of 50 recent edits, I guess:
USE enwiki_p;

SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM user
WHERE user_editcount > 600
  AND user_id NOT IN /* Exclude local bots. */
    (SELECT ug_user
     FROM user_groups
     WHERE ug_group="bot")
  AND user_name NOT IN
    (SELECT gu_name
     FROM centralauth_p.globaluser JOIN centralauth_p.localuser ON lu_name=gu_name AND lu_wiki="enwiki"
     JOIN centralauth_p.global_user_groups ON gug_user=gu_id
     WHERE gug_group="global-bot");
★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
See some proposed research on the topic at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Counting_Wikipedians ★NealMcB★ (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Are editors on equal standing regarding articles?

I have had the impression that WP is an egalitarian organization that values team-playing contributors (editors) equally, no matter the extent to which they want to or are able to contribute. This statement from the lede: "Wikipedians are people who write and edit the pages for Wikipedia, unlike readers who simply read the articles. Anyone can be a Wikipedian—including you." appears to me to support that view.

However, I've recently looked at an article that includes at Talk page where three gate-keeping editors (non-administrators, I think) repeatedly post dismissive comments directed at editors who propose changes. The statements include wording to the effect that only the opinions of regular editors to an article count and not those of editors that come in through the transom ("drive-by editors" as they call newcomers to an article). One gate-keeper even came right out and said to another editor that they don't have to pay any attention to the other's opinion.

So, what is true of Wikipedia - egalitarianism, some editors are winkingly more equal than others, or there's a site policy that some editors within an article have more weight than others? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it troubling that there is no reply posted to my query. The silence doesn't seem to bode well. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should all strive to welcome all editors, new and regular and infrequent. Please link to the talk page in question and bring it and any others like it to the attention of others, so we can address it directly. Thank you! ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How

How we can make my wiki history page haris khan wazir 18:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris khan wazir6 (talk • contribs)

Brazilian Portuguese option

We need translate "pt" to "pt-br". It's different languages. I was blocked trying to have an better Wikipedia.org

Thanks.

Bruno Gonçalves Pirajá (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for Adminship

Please made me admin please i want adminship give me some tips to get the opportunity of adminship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan sherwani (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by the term "adminship"?
What do you want to do by that?
Interested to know. Elsid-h (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want to become an Administrator (not me), then you should first read Wikipedia:Administrators then go to Wikipedia:Requests For Adminship. You can then create a subpage under the Wikipedia:Requests For Adminship directory (i.e. Wikipedia:Requests For Adminship/Example). UpsandDowns1234 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)== Suggestion; time-expiring watchlist entry

Suggestion; time-expiring watchlist entry

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T100508

Dear all, I find I often want to watch a wiki page for say a week or two - typically after I have made an edit, to see if it is is accepted. I suggest the 'watchlist' options be extended to offer this option; i.e. a time-limited watchlist entry ('drops off watchlist in 2 weeks time'). JCJC777 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)User:JCJC777

@JCJC777: This would be useful. But this is the wrong place to make such suggestions; a better place would be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --Fixuture (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

First edit?

Apparently this page had the first edit ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/?oldid=1 made by User:Luis Oliveira. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 20:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Or possibly that was the first revision after one of the early software upgrades. Graham87 (talk · contribs) is the expert on this kind of thing. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was the first edit after Wikipedia was upgraded to the Phase II software. Earlier edits were imported later. Graham87 00:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Source for nationality?

"Most editors (20%) reside in the United States, followed by Germany (12%) and Russia (7%). The only country not in Europe or North America in the top 10, is India (3%)." Is there a source for that? I'd love to see it! Also, this statement requires a date. And the section title should rather be "residence" than nationality I guess. Guaka (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, I keep reading statistics about Wikipedia's editors like nationality, gender, education but I keep wondering where they get this data, most editors I encounter are from India, and most Indians tend to have a rotating IP address so they will tend to be fictionally overrepresented, in fact the same goes for Vietnam, I don't get where they get these statistics from. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Most such numbers come from one of the m:Editor Surveys. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that participation on some of these surveys was relatively low and they were translated to just a few of the languages that have a Wikipedia edition (e.g. 2012 survey was translated to 16 languages) so some nationalities are underrepresented. --MarioGom (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Does this article meet the guidelines?

I am a new, but I would like to point out an article, “Warlord Era”, that seems to use very strange language and may be somewhat untrustworthy. The section “Warlord profiles” in particular is the the most obvious. The article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era SwagsOnB (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Errors in interpretation

There appear to be a number of errors in the interpretation of the UNU-Merit study published in March 2010. For example, the study is a summary of the results of a questionnaire available to everyone who uses wikipedia; both contributors and readers. The results of the study as reported in this wiki article state they are for contributors only. I will be making adjustments to this article to accurately reflect the context and results of the referenced studies. Fr33labour (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing major

There is an instance of UNN-Merit instead of UNU-Merit Xokai (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Broken reference citation

Reference number 1 on this page contains a Check |url= value error message. I'd like to fix it, but I don't see the corresponding markup in the edit view. The reference is from a sidebar or box aside. It looks like the box is inserted with {{Wikipedia editor graph}} but I don't know what this points to or how to go about fixing it. Jno.skinner (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: merge WP:Who writes Wikipedia? into this page

There is a consensus to merge Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? into this page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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.


The pages address the same topic with roughly the same level of detail, so we ought to WP:CONSOLIDATE them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

Template:Essay

Please could you update: "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." > "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more editors."

"editors" versus "contributors" score (to make realize overwhelming "editor" usage, and thus that "editor" must be privileged).
Some examples:
Wikipedia:Essays: 8 x "editors" versus 0 x "contributors" (I edited the page to add 1 x "contributor"; to state "contributor=editor")
Category:Wikipedia_essays: 141 x "editors" versus 2 x "contributors"
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_essays: 6 x "editors" versus 2 x "contributors"
Wikipedia:The value of essays: 5 x "editors" versus 0 x "contributors"
Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays: 9 x "editors" versus 0 x "contributors"
Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy: 5 x "editors" versus 0 x "contributors" + Template:Essay 1 x "contributor"

So there are over 2000 essays. Most of them showing only 1 occurence of "contributor" on their page (because of Template:Essay transclusion). This can "confuse" newcomers, readers, non-native English speaking people if they don't know that "contributor=editor". — Antoine Legrand (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Just speaking for myself, I am really losing my patience with your ridiculous preoccupation with this. If you keep it up then you, specifically, aren't going to be an editor, contributor, user, reader, Wikipedian, or anything else around here much longer. Now put a lid on it. EEng 22:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
In English, it's helpful and retains interest if we switch freely between near-synonyms as appropriate. If we don't, an occasional use can disturb the readers, who may fear that some important distinction is being made. Your proposed restrictions of our vocabulary would be actively harmful. Now please read Wikipedia:Competence is required and follow the advice above. NebY (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

contributor=editor=Wikipedian

(moved at the proper place from elsewhere) Lembit Staan (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Previously launched discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Administration, Wikipedia_talk:Protection policy and Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability will continue at this central location.

According to Merriam-Webster Thesaurus and Wiktionary, "Contributor" and "Editor" are not synonyms! Until my recent contributions on Wikipedia (second sentence), Wikipedia:About and Help:Your_first_article (first sentence), there were virtually no mention at all on Wikipedia that a contributor is an editor, not to mention Wikipedians... Clearly, there was a need for such a clarification as my bold edits were not immediately reverted... Still many long-time editors assume that everyone knows "contributor=editor=Wikipedian", as if it was common knowledge or even common sense on Wikipedia. It wouldn't surprise me if more people than we think believe that "Wikipedians" are "Wikipedia users" and thus anyone using Wikipedia.

My proposition for "Information" and "Policies and Guidelines" pages (that mixes terms) is to reach consensus to:

1. publish "contributor=editor=Wikipedian" (to educate readers, as on Wikipedia)
2. or standardize the wording by using only the already majoritary term (from experience, 99% chance to be "editors")

Objective is to improve readability, as newcomers and readers may think: "another name"="another status". — Antoine Legrand (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If, as you say, "contributor" and "editor" are not synonyms, then we can't say they are always the same, or prohibit the use of a word that might be best in a given context. Station1 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Let's be clear, I do not say that "contributor" and "editor" are not synonyms, but Merriam-Webster Thesaurus and Wiktionary do! But effectively, as a newcomer in the beginning, I read a lot of different pages in Project namespace and I got "confused" because of the random and sometimes inconsistent use of "editor" and "contributor". At that time, I had read absolutely nowhere that "editor"="contributor" and I even consulted Merriam-Webster! Finally after digging everywhere, I found the answer here: Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? — Antoine Legrand (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#contributor=editor - clarification required: Lembit Staan (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I googled "wikipedia editor contributor" and found this page: Wikipedia:Wikipedians, which should explain "editors" and "contributors". Maybe you could check if that page needs improvement and link to that page? Betty (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Contributor ≠ editor. Editors ⊆ contributors.
This is because you can "contribute" (e.g., uploading images, operating a bot) without "editing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
However that page just makes the confusion worse: "Wikipedians (Wikipedia's editors and contributors) are the volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia's articles, unlike readers who simply read them." If there is a distinction between contributor and editor to be found there, it is that contributors create articles and editors work on them. It isn't the same distinction at all. Personally I think this confusion of definitions is a self-inflicted injury. Zerotalk 15:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not true that contributors create articles. The World Health Organization is a contributor to Wikipedia. See c:Category:World Health Organization COVID-19 disinformation infographics for some of the organization's contributions. The WHO is not, however, an editor; the organization itself does not edit articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. WHO is a contributor to Commons (a "commoner"?:-) (and an editor there as well), and Wikipedians just harvest the fruits of their labor. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
because you can "contribute" (e.g., uploading images, operating a bot) without "editing" -- this is the same as to say that you can operate an excavator without digging a hole - i.e., a little sense to say so, unless you are a lawyer. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
> because you can "contribute" (e.g., uploading images, operating a bot) without "editing"
In Wikipedia's term, uploading images and operating a bot both count as editing. You can view the history of a image and see the "edits" history. You can also see a lot of edits by bots in the history pages.
The only ways to contribute without editing I can think of off the top of my head are donating money to Wikipedia and promoting Wikipedia on other media. Betty (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

After the dust settles, we may want to update Wikipedia:Glossary, which say: "Editor - Anyone who writes or modifies Wikipedia articles. That includes you. Other terms with the same meaning: contributor, user." But it does not say who Wikipedian is. :-) Lembit Staan (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

For those of you that still have questions and want to know more in details my way of working, feel free to read the second link Wikipedia_talk:Protection policy and click "Show" Extended content. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

To improve the wording of the first sentence on WP:Wikipedians, I would suggest:

"The editors, also called contributors on Wikipedia, are known as Wikipedians and, these, are the community of volunteers who write and maintain Wikipedia articles, unlike readers who simply read them."

I think this is a much more "polished" first sentence. Please, bear in mind that most of the people navigating Wikipedia may have never heard about Wikipedians before, even more those clicking on the term because they want to know more about it! From experience, even if "Wikipedian" is present on Wikipedia it is not an overall present term. So I think that beginning the sentence with a well-known word is better. When I wrote that according to Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary "editors" and "contributors" are not synomyms, several long-term editors argued that it is well known "on Wikipedia", that editors=contributors. So let's stress this, by writing: "...also called contributors on Wikipedia..." and not simply "Editors, also called contributors, are known as Wikipedians...". I use who "write and maintain" and "community of volunteers" inspired by the first sentence on Wikipedia. Maybe my suggestion can even further been "polished" by a native English speaking editor (I am not sure to properly link "community of volunteers" to Wikipedians!). — Antoine Legrand (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss how many angels dance on the end of a pin all you want, A.L., but stop mass-changing pages to fit your idiosyncratic impulses. EEng 16:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, nobody seems to care to discuss the issue here, and therefore he has rights to do what he is doing, unless this leads to something harmful. And his edits loo "mass changing" only in his contrib history. In fact, did didnt change that many pages. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
And I have the right to change it all back, which I'm doing. This compulsive ironing out of synonyms and connotations is ridiculous. Paging Johnuniq, whose edit summary in reverting A.L. several days ago was ignored by him. EEng 22:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The proposed sentence "The editors, also called contributors on Wikipedia, are known as Wikipedians and, these, are the community of volunteers who write and maintain Wikipedia articles, unlike readers who simply read them" is not grammatical English, let alone idiomatic, and lacks both the clarity and the brevity of "Wikipedians are volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia by editing its pages, unlike readers who simply read the articles." Good editors communicate without tripping readers up with faulty grammar and convoluted sentences, especially in the very first sentence of an article. Editing Wikipedia articles is great training in this and I strongly recommend gaining experience in collaboratively editing the actual encyclopedia before rewriting the community's guidelines and internal information pages. NebY (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
My sentence was only a "suggestion" and at the time it was made the new lead had not yet been published. My sentence was made in reaction of (see above) (User: Zero0000): However that page just makes the confusion worse: "Wikipedians (Wikipedia's editors and contributors) are the volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia's articles, unlike readers who simply read them." I totally agree that the sentence published today is a big improvement, however it is lacking to educate newcomers by telling them in a second or third sentence that they will never be referred as "volunteer that edits" Wikipedia, and not so often as Wikipedians but rather mainly as editors or as contributors. In the previous version of the lead, as cited in my post, "(Wikipedia's editors and contributors)" were present. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
"My sentence was only a "suggestion"" It was a strikingly bad suggestion, worse than the existing text and inherently bad English, whatever it "was made in reaction of" (sic). Please acknowledge that. The current lead is not "lacking to educate newcomers" (sic); we don't need to tell people we won't call them aeroplanes and we don't need to tell people we won't call them "volunteers who edit" - and besides, we will often call ourselves volunteers, with some asperity when we see time wasted by disruption. Again, please get some experience reading and writing English encyclopedia articles and indeed, English in general. NebY (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't tell ___ what to do. Fun81 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence

@Jc37 I disagree with the changes made on the page. Contributors and editors are missing from the definition... and MUST be present. Volunteers is too vague. We are editors and contributors "before" being volunteers. Wikipedians is often a wikilink in different articles on Wikipedia and visitors that want to know more about the term only learn that we are people giving some time for Wikipedia as volunteers. Also, editors and contributors are talking each other using "editor" or "contributor" before using "Wikipedian". I thought we first had to discuss here to find a "consensus" among volunteers editors before publishing a new version... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoine Legrand (talk • contribs)

Someone who edits is an editor, someone who contributes is a contributor. Simple English usage. The focus of this page is Wikipedians, and what that means. I simplified the lead to make it clearer and readable to everyone.
As I now read the above, I think your focus on adding the precise word "editor" and/or "contributor" to every policy page is rather pedantic, and honestly more than a touch POV pushing disruption. And if you don't think so, I suggest you may want to check WP:AN/I archives to see how the community has addressed such things in the past. For example, I've seen bot users not only lose the privilege to use bots, but getting outright banned over such things.
At the moment, I don't care enough about this to really concern myself much about it, but please be aware, if it is deemed that your edits are causing disruption, some uninvolved admin may decide to enact sanctions. - jc37 13:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedians/Archive_3&oldid=1261497846"