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.
Article milestones
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
May 21, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 15, 2005.
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article

          Other talk page banners

Number of Wikipedias mentioned in lede ?

How about mentioning the currently still active number of 312 WP (language) editions – instead of the current lede, which mentions the total number of 323 WP (language) editions that have been active (without mentioning eleven have since been closed !) ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

And of course the same question about the opening sentence of section "Language editions": "There are currently [ ! ? ] 323 language editions of Wikipedia (also called language versions, or simply Wikipedias).
Should the 'NUMBEROF' template not be set to 'active' instead of the (indiscriminate) 'languages' setting ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Also known as "wiki"

Many people i've spoke with call the website "wiki" I would add it. Into the introduction. Also shortened as "wiki". Most people get it when one says "I searched on wiki about Normandy, or Slovakia...etc.

--Joujyuze (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

statistics, active, ip

Dexxor the statistics should be then referenced with proper citation templates. I'd argue those statistics establish notability, and as such should be referenced by secondary reliable sources instead. Now on the IP statement, that needs to be sourced as well, otherwise they can be removed.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has unreliable, primary, vested, and general conflict of interest sources

Wikipedia has unreliable, vested, and general conflict of interest sources. For example, in the lead section Wikimedia Foundation and Reputation X are used for establishing notability though statistics. Wikimedia Foundation is clearly in WP:COI. Reputation X has vested interest Wikipedia-wise (go to its website, and see that they offer Wikipedia-related services), and doesn't even list the authors (it's just "Reputation X"). These sources shall be removed, and its supporting content as well. For now, I'll include templates of unreliable sources being used.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn (talk · contribs) I already added it to the talk page, and nobody answered. So I guess, take it to the notice board. These sources can't be used like that.Hfnreiwjfd (talk)
Thanks Hfnreiwjfd, missed this. Probably needs to be up a few more days to generate comments, not everyone checks watchlists daily. I agree with the rep. X edits, the foundation sourcing is an interesting question and should have more input. I'd think the foundation may be considered and have topic expert status but a good point. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Randy Kryn That's alright. Please, keep the issue templates. The discussion of the usage of these sources, which includes wikimedia foundation, should be taken to the notice board. I likely won't do this, but would be great if someone else do.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
With the page activity this should attract interest of other editors. In the states this overlaps with the July 4th holiday weekend so it may be slower to be spotted. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Users here can have bias towards keeping content or not. So, this should be taken to the notice board instead where they deal with issues like these daily.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hfnreiwjfd. Good call on removing Reputation X. However, while you're right that we need to take care with primary sources, they aren't banned outright on Wikipedia. You can read the policy here. Although it requires careful judgement, primary sources can be useful in a number of different situations. In the lead, the foundation is being cited for a factual summary of Wikipedia statistics, this is a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" and it's reasonable to assume that the foundation is a good authority on Wikipedia statistics. The important thing is that primary sources aren't used to support analysis, evaluation or interpretation, which isn't the case with the text you removed. It's also not being used to establish notability, as you suggested in your edit summary – here the notability is established by the breadth of media coverage about Wikipedia and the statement about its prominence in Alexa rankings in the first paragraph (which cites both The Economist, the secondary source for the analysis, and Alexa, the primary source for the statistics). Jr8825Talk 14:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jr8825: Is wikimedia foundation a reliable primary source? Doesn't it conflict with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Besides, wikimedia foundation source is used to establish notability to and exemplify with English Wikipedia, which should be done with secondary reliable sources instead. This should be taken to the notice board.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Wikipedia are not the same entity. The foundation is a separately run charity and information it publishes isn't crowdsourced in the same way as information on Wikipedia itself, which is largely what WP:NOTSOURCE is about (that, and circular sourcing). As well as citing the foundation for statistics, there are several times in this article where Wikipedia policies and pages are directly cited. Someone had the foresight to add the following point to NOTSOURCE which covers this situation pretty well: "An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)." By all means feel free to take this to a noticeboard, although I'm not personally convinced there's much of a problem here. Jr8825Talk 15:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jr8825: Thanks for detailing. Still, Wikimedia Foundation source is used to exemplify/notice the English Wikipedia, which should be done with secondary reliable sources instead. The New York Times article mentions the English Wikipedia, but it doesn't mention that English Wikipedia is the largest, and the statistics are from the Wikimedia Foundation source.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Using the foundation's numbers is an appropriate use of a primary source. The fact that the English Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia isn't directly supported by any citation there, but that's acceptable since it's unlikely to be challenged (it's easily verifiable as the data, generated automatically by bots, can be found here). Also, citations aren't always required in the lead if the same information is sourced in the article body (see MOS:LEADCITE). Yes, it'd be preferable to be citing a published book on the history of Wikipedia, but given the transparent nature of Wikipedia's data it's not really a problem. Jr8825Talk 16:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again. But it is a problem if it doesn't verify with the inline citations, if it doesn't cite reliable sources, and exemplifying and giving notability with WP:COI sources conflicts with wikipedia guidelines. An user requested peer review for this article to then elevate it to good article. So, the standards for this article should be kept high.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipidia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipidia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#Wikipidia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KamranBhatti4013 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Problematic use of sources referencing Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia sister projects

Wikipedia has references to Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia sister projects. For example, many references to Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the sections Wikipedia#Openness, Wikipedia#Content policies and guidelines, Wikipedia#Governance. Wikipedia#Content policies and guidelines mostly references Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which is contrary to the recommendation of WP:RSPRIMARY. This is problematic because it goes against Wikipedia:No original research, WP:USERGENERATED, and WP:RSPRIMARY. Besides this increases the chances of Circular reporting, giving these topics artificial notability. So, the proposition is to either rewrite these contents with reliable secondary sources, or just delete content referencing Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects. Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So Wikipedia seems to have conflicting guidelines WP:CIRCULAR that seems to allow this usage to an extent, but "The article text should make it clear the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is aware of the potential bias." What a joke wikipedia policies are, giving privilege to Wikipedia.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • By now, I hope you have read the replies to your similar query at WP:Verifiability, and better understand the nuances involved. To summarize: there are very few situations where it is appropriate to cite Wikipedia… but there are some. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    I made the same point above. Jr8825Talk 17:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Many parts of Wikipedia violates WP:CIRCULAR, WP:PRIMARY, etc

The article has many statements self-referencing Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and so on. These statements don't make it clear in prose that the statements are according to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc, which violates WP:CIRCULAR. Some statistics don't even use citation templates while self-referencing Wikipedia. Also, there are paragraphs that mostly self-reference Wikipedia, which is undue weight, etc, violating WP:PRIMARY, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:WEIGHT, and so son. So I propose that someone fix those issues, or remove those statements that are violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hfnreiwjfd: If you'd like to find some secondary sources and have a go at reworking sections, feel free. The best thing to do if you think there's a problem on Wikipedia is to fix it yourself, since other volunteer editors will be focused on things that interest them (or are pressingly urgent). Here are some links: Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL. Cheers, Jr8825Talk 22:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


Don't see the purpose of this. I saw blending, said "huh?" hovered over it and saw the link to portmanteau – then it made sense. In any case according to us blend word is a different thing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read the lead paragraph of portmanteau (sounds like a word from a spelling bee), it says that it is a blend word. The purpose for using "blending" rather than the p-word rests on understandability. Readers shouldn't be confused coming upon an unfamiliar word when a common word does just fine. Especially so soon into an article, it will lose readers as the "huh?" portion of their brains kick in. "blending" adequately describes what occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Why don't we link to blend word instead? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Portmanteau seems the better page of the two in describing the concept (the blend word page is itself a form of definition-jabberwocky) but the word, created as a nonsense word by Lewis Carroll, can best be stripped of its uncommonality by using the common word "blending". Although a link to any page doesn't really seem needed, as "blending" stands on its own, "portmanteau" contains the essence but not the familiarity. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I think I'd personally find "portmanteau" more immediately clear than "blending". But I suppose it's small fry. Jr8825Talk 11:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Should the lead sentence (and short description) really include the word "free"? I get that Wikipedia's slogan is "The Free Encyclopedia", but the word "free" really seems to be promotional in this case. Google Search is also "free" in the same manner and that's not mentioned in the lead sentence. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point, and have extended it to the full link free content which does carry specific meaning as a descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)