Talk:Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:17, 18 June 2008

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: 7 days

Wikipedia 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.

Wikipedia has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 5, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
March 9, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
April 4, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 9, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 4, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 1, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
September 15, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 25, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Wikipedia GA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture GA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Websites: Computing Unassessed

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:FAOL

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 articles

Template:WP1.0

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: 7 days

Using WIkipedia in the classroom...

Hello. My name is Amina. I am in middle school. My teacher says that it may not be good to use Wikipedia for research because anyone can edit it, and some stuff could be inaccurate. Can we discuss this topic and what we feel about it? I am just curious about what others would say. Thanks! I will create a Wikipedia account soon. --65.190.208.212 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is my account: --Amina96 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amina. The official party line on this is that you should never use an encyclopaedia as a primary source - they're more useful for background reading. Most articles should give sources which will allow you to see where the information came from. I suggest you look at Reliability of Wikipedia for more information. This page is for discussion on how to improve the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

taicwondo

what is it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.252.29 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a martial art. See tae kwondo. Oh, and in future, please ask questions such as this on the reference desk. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Their should be a section about criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the relaibility and bias section, and the article Criticism of Wikipedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then someone link the critisism article to the "see also" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections are discoureged on wikipedia per WP:NPOV as they are a POV magnet. ffm 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki versioning

Are all laguage versions of Wikipedia using the same MediaWiki version as en.wikipedia.org? I do not think so! Lets put it in the article.--Kozuch (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be WP:OR at best, in any case, AFAICT, they do. ffm 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What just happened?

I just saw the page just have 2 contributions. The talk page was even non-existant. What happened? Arienh4^(Talk) 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were probbably looking at the wrong one, as this page has no recent deletion entries in the log. ffm 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timezone?

What time does Wikipedia use? It is currently a couple of minutes past midnight (in England), but when I sign this, it will say it has just gone 11. Why???

DineshAdv (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UTC? -- Taku (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, per the words at the end of every timestamp (like the one that follows: ) ffm 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, such questions belong at the help desk, this is for coordination of the article "Wikipedia". ffm 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't know why I didn't notice that. DineshAdv (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critics? Which ones?

The criticism section mentions repeatedly various critics and commentators but, never says who. The question I want to now is what critics and commentators feel that Wikipedia has problems and for that matter what are their EXACT complaints? I my opinion even a few limited examples would help here. So I made up a template to (I hope) help. Here is a simple to follow template for the Wikipedia criticism section.

Insert the info, write the citation, and you're done.

"Many (insert method of communication.)(I.E. T.V.) commentators feel that Wikipedia is flawed. One such person is(insert commentator that operates on that method of communication.) I.E. Lou Dobbs) who feels/believes that Wikipedia is flawed because (insert reason here) I.E. loss of print encyclopedia business and further slump in the economy.)(Cite RELIABLE source here.)

Below is a simple example of this template.

Many T.V. commentators believe Wikipedia is flawed. One such person is Lou Dobbs who strongly believes that Wikipedia is has problems because he believes that it could put print encyclopedia out of business. Thereby leading to a further loss of jobs and an increased slump in the economy. [Random number of cititation.]

(P.S. Lou Dobbs was the only commentator who I could think of at the time.)