This page currently duplicates material that is already easily available on the main page, without adding much for someone who wants to find out about the project. Given that this page is linked from every article on Wikipedia, I think it could do with being made more useful. Hello
- I don't think a merge would be appropriate. The WN page is oriented towards potential contributors while this page, IMO, should be more general, kept small and be just as useful to non-contributing users as it is for contributing users. This page should contain brief info about Wikipedia (our process, articles, and organization). The more recent updates that I have done to this page is to make the very brief intro statement on the new Main Page work. --mav
Good move, Cunc, straight out of the "now why didn't I think of that?" department. Now that you have put the disclaimer link here, it is obvious that this was the best place for it all along. Tannin 15:38 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
OK, now let's look at this:
Wikipedia contains content that may be considered offensive, vulgar or profane by some users
Wikipedia contains content that is considered offensive, vulgar or profane by some users
- The first states an opinion: "I think you may be interested in X"
- The second states a fact: "You told me you are interested in X"
- Opinion: "They may consider this to be offensive"
- Fact: "They consider this to be offensive"
- Opinion: "Many people may not be interested in such subjects"
- Fact: "Many people are not interested in such subjects"
- Opinion: "Many users may choose to stay anonymous!"
- Fact: "Many users choose to stay anonymous."
Stating an opinion as a fact is POV, period. -- Rotem Dan 10:38 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- The problem with the "is considered offensive" statement is that it is not necessarily true: Content that was considered offensive by user X yesterday may no longer be considered offensive now. For example, some users complained about the image illustrating the clitoris article; it was subsequently edited, and we do not know what these users think about the current version. The definitions of "offensive, vulgar, profane" are so vague that any statement to the prevalence of such feelings refers to attitudes that are likely to be in a constant flux; using speculative language is therefore more accurate. --Eloquence 10:46 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- You are avioding the clear distinction I pointed out between an opinion and a fact. A speculative assertion is an opinion: "An American may hate the french people" would probably not qualify as NPOV in a Wikipedia article, it is a speculation, it has no clear ground regarding the real world, and will probably be dismissed as an assertion that serves some agenda. Saying "Some americans hate the french people" is a fact, but then again, define "hate". Nevertheless it is obvious which of the two is more NPOV -- Rotem Dan 11:02 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not avoiding the distinction, I'm pointing out a problem with it: The statement that some Americans hate the French can be easily proven by looking at the Yahoo! message boards. The statement regarding Wikipedia's alleged offensiveness to some people is much harder to prove. I do not recall that anyone has left the project because of it, for example, and the permanently changing nature of Wikipedia makes it difficult to assess the mindset of its users at any given time. That's why I consider a speculative statement preferable. If you make a controversial factual statement, NPOV requires that you back it up with citations and/or attribute it. --Eloquence 11:08 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- But a biased speculative assertion is fine? I hear the NPOV going down the drain. With this kind of thinking, I can go and flood Wikipedia with non-based biased speculations. To the George W. Bush article I will add: "Bush may murder a child when he sees one". "Americans may act dumb in most situations". "An Israeli solider may kill a palestinian when he sees one". "A palestinian may bomb him/herself when they walk into a restaurant".. -- Rotem Dan 11:22 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- And by the way, if you don't know for sure that people are offended by W's material, why does this notice exist? -- Rotem Dan
- Well, I certainly won't defend the notice, since I would be happier without it and found the content disclaimer silly from the start. But the whole point of the disclaimer is to warn the users from content that may be considered offensive, and the short sentence in the about page is not so much a factual statement about the status quo of Wikipedia, but a short warning to the same effect as the disclaimer, followed by a link to the full text. --Eloquence 11:34 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
OK, I understand, disclaimers present a "status quo opinion" (whatever that is, it is POV), not a fact. From lurking a bit on the Mailing list, I am seeing this hypocritical double standard emerging over the whole concept of NPOV (censorship, etc.). Well, frankly, I don't care, since the articles are GFDL (copyleft) I can reuse them wherever I want. The current administration board and policies can go to hell. (However, that certainly doesn't give me an extra incentive to work on the project).
By the way, consider moving these disclaimers to the meta-wikipedia, they don't serve a good example of NPOV on the main site -- Rotem Dan 12:02 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I've moved the following link out of the article. I don't think this is similar enough to be listed in the 'similar projects' section. If we did that, we'd be listing everything that is in the list of encyclopedias. Angela. 06:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- PureEnergySystems, newly forming open-source alternative energy encyclopedia project; will have peer-review editor system.
- The best person to ask would probably be User:Nohat (on his talk page or by email - david at nohat.net). Angela. 02:12, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
Would someone please add "Maori" to the list? :robinp 01:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You can add it yourself. It is hidden away at mediawiki:Wikipedialang. Changes to that page will affect the Wikipedia article and the Main Page. Angela. 17:31, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
I wonder about the purpose of this page. wikipedia:contact us has contact info. The community portal is for current contributors. Welcome, newcomers is for newbies. Wikipedia has factual info, and the rest is just a hotch-potch. I think it's worth orphaning and redirecting this at some point. Martin 00:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I think it might be useful to keep it just to point to those different places (Community Portal, Contact us etc). People are likely to look for an "About" link, and might overlook the other pages if they don't realise they are relevant. Angela. 08:02, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
What is this?
Quoting from the article page: The current incarnation of Wikipedia was begun on January 15, 2001 by founders Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, and a few enthusiastic English-language collaborators.
What is meant by "The current incarnation"? Were there previous incarnations? If so, I see no indication of it on History of Wikipedia. Seems to be unnecessarily confusing, if not outright wrong. I'm going to be bold and change it. -Rholton 19:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- "So it did not take much for Sanger to persuade Wales to set up a wiki for Nupedia. Nupedia's first wiki went online on January 10. There was considerable resistance on the part of Nupedia's editors and reviewers, however, to making Nupedia closely associated with a website in the wiki format. Therefore, the new project was given the name "Wikipedia" and launched on its own address, Wikipedia.com, on January 15" from History of Wikipedia. But a five day incarnation is hardly worth calling an incarnation. Your edits were good. :) --mav
Protecting this page
Looking at the page history for this page, almost all of it is vandalisms and reverts. Virtually all of the remaining legitimate edits were done by sysops. Would anyone object to semi-permanently protecting this page? →Raul654 07:34, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly object. A wiki is supposed to be edited. Vandalism is easy to revert. See also Wikipedia talk:Protected page#Wikipedia:About. Angela. 00:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I've suggested that as well. The page is strongly watched, but I just don't see the point of letting it be another sandbox. Dori | Talk 03:22, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
--Jew 10:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I sympathize with the problem, but as a responsible non-sysop I am somewhat frustrated at any page that I cannot edit. (Talk about getting spoiled by the Wiki concept! :-) Please don't protect this page. -Rholton 22:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- While I sympathise with non-sysops, there shouldn't be too much need to add to this page. I was already coming here to suggest that it be protected, after seeing the history, which reads like "attack-revert-attack-revert", with very few actual new contributions. I think it'd be much better - particularly considering the attention this page does receive - if this were permanently protected, like the main page. Ambivalenthysteria 15:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)