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 is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of reference work-related subjects 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.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
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
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editorson September 10, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
...the single-sentence paragraphs, the lack of flow within paragraphs, the broken connections between paragraphs, the weak large-scale architecture in the article, the huge number of references for a paltry amount of data, the lack of distinction between important and trivial facts.
Record a new audio file once it reaches FA standard
Is it worth having an FAQ like other heavy traffic articles? E.g. "Why should Wikipedia have an article on itself?"
The "sub-articles" that were split off from this article are badly in need of attention, as are several other related articles. The following all need work:
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted so long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andyzade1.
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.
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)
RandyKryn(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). Jr8825 • Talk 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. Jr8825 • Talk 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. Jr8825 • Talk 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)
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)
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, Jr8825 • Talk 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)
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. Jr8825 • Talk 11:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) (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)