Talk:German Wikipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

german wikipedia

just an intersting thing: [5]

apparently the German Wikipedia was down for three days over a lawsuit. Is there a reason this hasn't been mentioned here yet? I don't know enough background on it to add it myself: [6]

That article has misunderstood the situation. It says "The Wikimedia Foundation... reached a temporary settlement with a Berlin court that will let users access the German-language version of Wikipedia at http://de.wikipedia.org, hosted in the United States, instead of its usual http://www.wikipedia.de", which isn't true. http://de.wikipedia.org has always been the usual address, and it was always available there. What was down for three days was the redirect from http://www.wikipedia.de. That address still doesn't redirect to German Wikipedia, although you can at least click through to German Wikipedia from there now. --Angr (tɔk) 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a paragraph from my limited understanding of the situation and with help from other articles already discussing the event. Felt it was far too important to not being mentioned at all here. Chancemill 17:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

"A representative of Brockhaus pointed out the copyright infringement, and the list was deleted."

How is a list of their article titles a copyright infringement? Superm401 - Talk 05:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, presumably in the same way the table of contents of a book are copyrighted: the selection of topics is a creative act. AxelBoldt 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WP DVD versions

Can someone add more information about the impact of their offline publications. Were the DVDs/books sold in bookstores? Any public reaction, popularity? Responses from the media and Wikipedians? Criticisms? Just interested. I ask b/c I'm interested in helping out WP:1.0. Gflores ^Talk 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

dialect policy

I would like to read about how the German Wikipedia deals with the different dialects of German. Is their policy about the same as ours for American versus British English? -lethe ^{talk +} 06:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, dialects like Alemannic and Plattdeutsch have their own separate Wikipedias. Written standard High German is pretty consistent across German-speaking areas, except that in Switzerland ß is never used, so Switzerland-related articles use Swiss spellings (grosse Strasse instead of große Straße, etc.). Also, words that belong to the written standard in Austria (like Jänner for "January" instead of Januar) are also allowed in Austria-related articles. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So basically, there is accommodation for some orthographic differences, but there is no place for dialects. No place for an article written in Bavarian or Swiss German, say? I guess the reasoning is that the places where those dialects are spoken use standard High German for the written language, so wikipedia should do the same? -lethe ^{talk +} 09:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Swiss German would be included in the Alemannic Wikipedia (Alemannic is a cover term for the dialects of Swabia, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Vorarlberg, Baden, and Alsace dialects). If enough people were interested, I suppose they could start an Austro-Bavarian Wikipedia. But you're right, those are primarily spoken rather than written dialects; in the areas where they're spoken, standard High German is the usual written language. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

German dialects are nothing like British vs. American English. Think ebonics gone wild. It's more like Dutch vs. German. In Swiss German, for instance, even the grammar is very different from German. Germans have a hard time understanding Swiss German, and some Swiss German dialects are hard to understand even for other Swiss German speakers. There is no standard way of writing those dialects and most native dialect speakers will find it much easier reading and writing standard German. Talking about "reasoning" suggests that this might have been seriously considered, but accepting dialect articles in the German wikipedia would be way beyond ludicrous. As Angr said, there are separate WPs for some German dialects, and at least the one in Alemannic German is – predictably – a mess (too many different dialects subsumed). – Mind you, I am not saying you asked a stupid question – actually, I will try and add something short to the article proper. Algae 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So the article German language says at the outset that German is a pluricentric language. But this isn't true in the strictest sense. Now I actually see that the article on pluricentric languages describes the situtaion with German. Standard High German occupies a privileged position among dialects, and the choice to use it solely on wikipedia is an easy one. Integration like we do in English would not be possible. -lethe ^{talk +} 11:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a linguist, but it's really a matter of definition and IMO the German language article is quite correct. The differences between German in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland are small but exist: Slightly different vocabulary, subtle punctuation changes, minor spelling differences – just about enough to easily determine the country of origin for a newspaper article. It is really quite comparable to American vs. British English (although less distinct). The pluricentric language article exaggerates the differences.

German dialects, however, are a different world: They have evolved often quite independently for centuries, they are very different from German, and they are purely a regional thing (whereas in English, a dialect often relates to class). Think of (some of) them as separate languages; their speakers learn German as their second language in school. Algae 14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. The new section looks good, it's exactly what I was looking for. Nice work, and thanks again. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Style guide

I removed this sentence:

• The German Wikipedia lacks a detailed style guide comparable to the English Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Consequently, formatting is highly inconsistent even between featured articles.

Okay, our Styleguide and its adherent pages is not as long and detailed as the english, but "lack" is a strong word. Examples for inconsistent formatting are welcome. --Elian ^Talk 05:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, yes, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style doesn't interwiki-link to de:WP:WSIGA. TZM^T (de:^T) 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Commons

• The German Wikipedia has decided to phase out the use of local image uploads and will exclusively use Wikimedia Commons for images and other media.

This sentence is not completely true. Yes, there was a poll on this where the "support" side won, and the upload on German Wikipedia still works because of many opposers (94:79). However, they're planning to directly link to commons:Special:Upload, and de:MediaWiki:Uploadtext has a big box on the top saying: Attention! Uploading your files directly to Wikimedia Commons ins requested, because then they can be used from other language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects too. See the picture tutorial for a how-to. TZM^T (de:^T) 13:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First article's day

Only a question, when was created the first article in German Wikipedia? --83.43.89.230 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia history, on May 2001. You can check it in:

• Wikipedia:Multilingual ranking March 2001
• Wikipedia:Multilingual ranking April 2001
• Wikipedia:Multilingual ranking May 2001

--81.38.177.129 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The oldest known article there was on May 12, created by an anon (and they still allow article creation by anons). See Polymerase-Kettenreaktion (probably a translation from english wp, since it contains the original text). The oldest known article sta by a registered user (LA2) was Daenemark on May 17, now a redirect to Dänemark. TZM^T (de:^T) 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

article-free sunday

anyone know how this went? will this be done again in the near future? 70.104.16.146 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can read German, take a look at de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Artikelfreier Sonntag. Of course the supporters have declared it a success, but since in fact there were about as many new articles created that day as every other day, I'd call it a failure (in addition to being the stupidest idea in the history of German Wikipedia). —Angr 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

German version of this article?

I wonder why there's no german language link of this article. Or does a german article not exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.55.33.74 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

The German version has been deleted. Rl 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Which serves as an example for the greater strictness in the German Wikipedia; as it says here, "the German one tends to be more selective in its coverage"... indeed. In case anyone is wondering: the main points for deleting the article, according to the deletion discussion, was something like "the article is self-adulation, the Wikipedia shouldn't describe the history of its language versions in-depth in the article namespace, the general article de:Wikipedia is enough". Opinions were divided, though; I'm not sure that deletion was the right decision - if the general public would like to know something about the German Wikipedia, it will search for it like for other things in the article namespace - and will find nothing in the German Wikipedia (de:Wikipedia contains very little information about the German one). 01:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Language issues

I tagged the article as needing copy editing since I suspect that the recent additions/modifications made mainly by native German speakers (including myself) might seem at least a bit strange, stylistically, to native English speakers, and maybe there are some errors. If native English speakers think that there are no oddities hampering the article's readability, please remove the tag :-) Gestumblindi 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

External / Interwiki links

I noticed that the article uses interwiki links such as de:Foobar to link on the German Wikipedia. I don't think this should be the case, because the link to the German Wikipedia is (logically) an external one, just like the Link on Wikipedia in the article 'Wikipedia'. See also Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references. So, what do you think about this? Should the links be changed to external links? --Church of emacs 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a rather unclear case, I'd say; links to the German Wikipedia are kind of "half-external" or "half-internal"; it's the same project after all. I think, however, that the interwiki solution is probably more elegant. The link to the multilingual Wikipedia portal http://www.wikipedia.org/ you mention isn't really comparable. As for self-references, well, this is an article about Wikipedia (one if its language versions) and I don't think this is what Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references applies to. Gestumblindi 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your opinion. I'm still a bit unsure about it, but on the other hand I did not find any rule that forbids that emphatically. @Gestumblindi: Nice museum of fakes. Interesting to read. :) --Church of emacs 16:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Luxemburgisch

Luxemburgisch appears as a 'dialect' in this article. It is now in fact considered a seperate language and should not be demoted to a dialect here. I have therefore removed it. jimbo 02:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

low german (nds) also isn't. It's much more complicate: today there are 2 seperate languages in Germany, 'low german' (devided from that is 'dutch') and 'high german' (de) with tons of dialects both, sometimes slightly different in each village. --84.143.64.237 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

German nationalistic bias

Hundreds of articles describing the history of Germany ignore the existence of Polish minority, sometimes majority. The Nazi crimes, camps for the Poles aren't mentioned. It's typical colonialistic point of view. The examples can be found eg. in 45 articles in Kategorie:Ehemaliger Landkreis in Posen. Xx236 11:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Polish nationalists point of view - Nonsense! --172.183.61.213 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Biased articles can be found everywhere in the German WP. And conflicts are not decided by trying to reach a consensus but by blocking users and censorship. A native German who would like to see some changes and movement towards the standards in the English WP (e.g. neutrality disputed, facts disputed and similar warnings - nothing like this exists in the German WP. What you read in the German WP is nothing but the absolute and eternal truth)

if you want to look for nationalistic bias search on the en:wp. as every nationalist of any country of the world starts flame wars about trivial stuff. kurds vs turks, greeks vs turks, polish vs germans and on and on and on. german wikipedia is quite calm.--Tresckow 10:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact everything, which even smells slightly nationalistic is considered problematic in Germany. Interesting point on this is the naming for non-German cities: except a very very small group of names, especially the capital of each country and some of the big cities in poland, the current native names are used. This depends on the used name in German media, which tunes more and more to use only native names.--TheK 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Socialist bias

Well, I have edited Socialism-related stuff here in en.wikipedia, e.g: [7], [8], [9], which all remain in the articles as of now. But when I tried to do the same in de.wikipedia, my account (Benutzer:Proklos), got indefinitely blocked! Can you believe it! Ehis proves quite well, that whatever be said of en.wikipedia, the German Wikipedia is incomparably more biased, i'd say even: is becoming a parody, a disgrace to the project. Constanz - Talk 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I've sent them a mail, suggesting investigation by their authorities. Hardly anything shall come out of it. The worse for them - I've quite experiences used, I'll suggest investigation from English-speaking line.Constanz - Talk 10:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• [[Category:German parties, which reject Agenda 2010]] (Dec 6, 2006) I created is still alive.
  • Kategorie:Parteien, die das Hartz-Konzept ablehnen in de.wikipedia was immediately deleted, and my account blocked for 2 hours.
    Why? Probably because regarding the Agenda issue, German far-left happened to share the views (once again!) with the neo-Nazis. But of course this fact is smth that must be hidden. And cursed be he that reveals it! Constanz - Talk 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article German Wikipedia, not for airing grievances about how you're treated there. —Angr 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This explanation is way too late, but still: Such categories are considered superfluous in de:wp. --Gnom (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And Fighters against the project policy will be blocked in every Wikimedia project. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Parodies and forks

Facts about Stupidedia: [10] and here: [11]

Facts about Kamelopedia: [12] and here: [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by H3ndrik (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction of editing restrictions

Could we have more information on that?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything said in the paragraph Introduction of editing restrictions is basically wrong. Unfortunately, English-language media used as sources for this paragraph got the "Gesichtete Versionen" and "Geprüfte Versionen" projects of the German Wikipedia quite wrong. To me as a native German speaker, it's not easy to describe it correctly in English, and I still hope that someone more skilled in English as well as more involved in the projects can do it. (Well, I think I could - but it takes a long time to put things together in understandable English.) Anyway, the original project descriptions can be found at de:Wikipedia:Gesichtete Versionen and de:Wikipedia:Geprüfte Versionen. First and foremost, there will be no list of "trusted users" who will control the addition of new material and articles to the project. User P. Birken, who is an administrator at the German Wikipedia and secretary of Wikimedia Germany (see de:Benutzer:P. Birken) removed the whole paragraph here as "blatant bullshit"; he's certainly right, but I'm not surprised that what he did got reverted, since the paragraph looks tidy and nicely sourced to the uninformed... Well:

- "Gesichtete Versionen" means: any user who has been active for a certain period and done a certain amount of edits (to be determined) will be able to mark any article version where no obvious vandalism took place as "gesichtet". In this context, "sichten" is probably best translated as "to glance over"; it means that someone had a look at the article and deemed it free of obvious nonsense, but no in-depth review took place. The idea is that this "gesichtete Version" will be the one to be shown to users per default (if there is one), but any subsequent version can be viewed by anyone as well.

- Similarly, "geprüfte Versionen" will be shown first per default, the difference to "gesichtete Versionen" being that an in-depth review of the content itself took place and the article is not just marked as vandalism-free but as factually correct.

All this, however, means no restrictions on editing itself whatsoever. Believe it - a project such as described by the referenced reports just doesn't exist. You will not find it in German Wikipedia. I really don't trust my English a lot, but if nobody creates a correct paragraph soon, I will try to cobble together something along the lines of what I tried to explain here. Gestumblindi 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You asked why I completely removed that paragraph. Today, this is still some time away on the german wikipedia and I think therefore not highly relevant for an encyclopedia article. There does exist a page in the english wikipedia anyhow, namely Wikipedia:Flagged Revisions. --P. Birken 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And who will determine that a version of an article is factually correct? Sources are not usually cited at German Wikipedia, and requesting sources where they are lacking is strongly discouraged and usually met with derision. Unless each article is geprüft by an expert in the field who was not involved in writing it (i.e. peer reviewed in the normal sense, not the sense used at English Wikipedia), there's simply no telling whether any article there is factually correct. —Angr 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. --P. Birken 19:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the point? You realize of course that such experts will almost never be found, so articles will either almost never be geprüft at all, or will be geprüft by the people who wrote them, who will have a vested interest in declaring them factually correct. —Angr 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Angr, there you are wrong. Citing is strongly encouraged, see de:WP:Q. To get a "Lesenswert" or an "Exzellent" nearly everything needs to be sourced. And trust me, I got my fair share of critizism for not finding "proper" or enough sources while writing for it. --84.141.175.25 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The German policy is in direct conflict with the whole Wikipedia philosophy: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." It will extremely difficult for non-mainstream theories to find its way in the German Wikipedia. I don't believe this has anything to do with a higher quality. Mr.K. (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Language Vs. Nationality

Why the Article is named "German Wikipedia"? This is simply not true. It's the "German Language Wikipedia". There are People from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and some more. Same problem is with the "English Wikipedia". It's the English Language Wikipedia". Marcus Cyron 10:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The adjectives "German" and "English" can mean "pertaining to the German language" and "pertaining to the English language" respectively, as well as meaning "pertaining to Germany" and "pertaining to England" respectively. —Angr 10:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This issues was discussed heavily some time ago. I know many (inlcuding myself) who think, German people only say "German Wikipedia" (Deutsche Wikiepdia), refering to Germany as a country not a language region. So I always speak of the "German language Wikipedia". --Saemikneu (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Other strict things

In German (speaking) Wikipedia, you won't find videos of ejaculating males. In Switzerland, an errect penis would be Pornographic - so some say. The mention video would defenitely be! --Saemikneu (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated statistics

I updated the statistics and did a couple other corrections (You can view the changes here), please leave any concerns you have here. Thanks. -C6541 (T↔C) at 20:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed outdated, unsourced section

I have removed the following section:

Community organisation

Since July 2004 some German Wikipedians have employed a web of trust known as Vertrauensnetz: they use a special template on a subpage of their user page to list all the other users whom they trust, along with reasons for the trust and links to the other users' trust pages. This "trust" is not meant as personal sympathy, but as testimony of serious engagement with the Wikipedia project. By using the "What links here" feature, one can then also obtain a list of all participants who trust a given user.

In February 2006 a new experimental project was started with the goal of evaluating users, providing feedback, and eventually eliminating the voting for adminships . Every participating user keeps a special evaluation subpage of their user page; others can leave positive or negative evaluations (with reasons) of the user on that page. A central page keeps track of the net number of positive evaluations received by every participant.

This section was marked as unreferenced since September 2008. This wouldn't be a problem since the contents could have been verified by following the two pages of the German Wikipedia. However, since the two experiments clearly failed, one would now have to say so, by original research based on the fact that they have not been edited recently. So I felt it was best to simply remove the section. If anyone has an external reliable source describing these attempts as failed/obsolete, then of course it's OK to add the information again, perhaps in shorter form. Hans Adler 14:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit war concerning a section of criticism

I have a problem with a number of German wikipedians who keep reverting (just erasing) the section of criticism on that wikipedia. The section is sourced by a number of articles of a German newspaper called Junge Freiheit. It is quite customary to summarize more important criticisms on supposed bias, e.g. we have a whole article Criticism of Wikipedia.

I'll copy recent edit history:

1. (cur | prev) 13:06, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) (43,959 bytes) (→Discussion on left-wing bias) (rollback | undo)
2. (cur | prev) 12:54, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) m (43,200 bytes) (Reverted edits by Pjacobi (talk) to last version by Miacek) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 12:37, 1 August 2010 Pjacobi (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (And another number of commentators have critized dewiki for it's right wing bias (because of neolib in economics, many burschenschaften articles, etc). This only tells about the commentators.) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 12:30, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) m (43,200 bytes) (Reverted edits by Matthiasb (talk) to last version by Miacek) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 12:26, 1 August 2010 Matthiasb (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (Undid revision 376581359 by Miacek (talk): Please read WP:Reliable sources and WP:News sources. Thank you.) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 12:19, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) (43,200 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Matthiasb; Rv 1) it generally does 2) for criticism on wikipedias, read Criticism of Wikipedia and discard your totalitarian mindset!. (TW)) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 12:13, 1 August 2010 Matthiasb (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (Reverted: Junge Freiheit does not meed the criteriain WP:Reliable sources) (undo)
8. (cur | prev) 08:33, 1 August 2010 PaterMcFly (talk | contribs) (43,200 bytes) (→Characteristics: No notability (very rarely frequented page)) (undo)
9. (cur | prev) 14:33, 29 July 2010 Cymothoa exigua (talk | contribs) m (43,511 bytes) (→Discussion on left-wing bias: Single-person controversies removed. Citing everybody who complains could also show "right-wing", "liberal", "religous", "atheistic", ... bias) (undo)
10. (cur | prev) 10:01, 28 July 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) m (45,947 bytes) (→Discussion on left-wing bias) (undo)
11. (cur | prev) 09:36, 28 July 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) (45,963 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Matthiasb; Rv Junge Freiheit is NOT extreme far-right publication, it is reputable enough for covering wikipedias. (TW)) (undo)
12. (cur | prev) 05:16, 28 July 2010 Matthiasb (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (→Discussion on left-wing bias: removed biased statements based on articles on a extreme far-right publication) (undo)
13. (cur | prev) 02:01, 28 July 2010 Goldzahn (talk | contribs) (45,963 bytes) (→Discussion on left-wing bias: see Junge Freiheit) (undo)
14. (cur | prev) 13:30, 27 July 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) m (45,965 bytes) (→Discussion on left-wing bias) (undo)

However, User:Matthiasb and User:Pjacobi who joined in later (was likely solicited, since he jumped out of the blue, having last edited months ago) do not engage in discussion, but just delete the whole sourced paragraph.

Now, this is just my personal reflection, but having edited German wikipedia a bit I can confirm that a certain attitude of censorship and political POV pushing prevails there and these two De-Wiki users behave exactly the same way here. As for me, I am here on English Wikipedia just as I was on German Wikipedia just interested in neutral coverage, and do not push any political POV whatsoever here on Wikipedias. Neither do I profess censorship, or incidentally - self-censorship.

The arguments Matthias raised in his edit summaries are invalid. Junge Freheit can be used as a source here. They have published a number of articles on Wikipedia - their initial impressions were more positive, but they later got more critical, lastly covering a student who used Wikipedia for promoting his own conceptions related to discrimination, classism etc. The argument User:Pjacobi raised in his edit summary (“And another number of commentators have critized dewiki for it's right wing bias (because of neolib in economics, many burschenschaften articles, etc). This only tells about the commentators.)” is not particularly convincing: if there are other notable criticisms, these can be summarized, too, but this mere fact of their presence is not a reason to censor anything from the version I wrote.

I see this whole affair just as an attempt to censor unpleasant sides of their project. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I expect people to comment on this, so that we can reach a compromise per Wikipedia guidelines. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing the criticism section from a single, small, and for that extremist, newspaper isn't a very good idea. Accusations of bias are common and varied (and even vary between accusations of being left-wind and being right-wing).

The best possible source for putting something related to this into an artice would be an academic piece of work, or perhaps good mainstream journalism, which would try to summarize and weight these criticisms. Unfortunately I'm not aware of something like this existing, but I'd guess there's some chance of finding it.

Also using this unreliable source (JF) to try to expose the the person behind a Wikipedia account doesn't belong into this article. The entire section about de:Schwarze Feder doesn't belong into this article, as his standing and influence on dewiki is so low, that criticisms of his actions and opinions are unrelated to the dewiki as an entity.

--Pjacobi (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That Junge Freiheit is unreliable is just your own POV. That it is 'extremist' in some way is again your POV. This is the view of the dominating participant of a project that labels Junge Freiheit as extremist (with no scholarly sources nor Verfassungsschutz supporting this) at the same time when ascertained left-wing extremist media outlets such as nadir.org and Junge Welt are used as sources.

There are few (or no) academic sources available for treating Wikipedias, true, but this does not mean that we should delete articles like Criticism of Wikipedia. Btw, the controversy sections here are either unsourced or based on online media like Spiegel, no problem with the latter IMO.

I specifically left aside severe criticism by webpages such as Kreuz.net, as they have the right to express their opinion but are too marginal. JF, however, is by no means marginal.

“The entire section about de:Schwarze Feder doesn't belong into this article, as his standing and influence on dewiki is so low” - again, merely the intepretation of you as a participant of the project. The source said something else.

As things stand, it is all your WP:IDONTLIKEIT and nothing else. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Junge Welt ist considered an extremist left wing publication, see Verfassungsschutzbericht bei the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution for year 2008. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

See also http://www.bpb.de/themen/XOEPZI,1,0,Rechtsextreme_SchwarzWei%dfMalerei.html

But the main point is, that one cannot take a single small circulation paper to pinpoint that subsection of criticism. By trying to achieve NPOV -- as well as by the occasional failure to achieve it, dewiki steps on the toes of several different people and factions. Any reliable source which would be able to show a systemic bias whose toes get the most damage, would be most welcome. But scratching together individual criticisms just doesn't work.

--Pjacobi (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Stop making your own rules. Both based on guidelines on referencing and similar examples, a series of articles in a Western media outlet is good enough, if it describes in some length what kind of bias it found in Wikipedia. This is the case there and it will be here, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a general section on alleged biases - the German Wikipedia or parts of the German Wikipedia have been described as left-wing, right-wing, neoliberal, atheistic, evangelical, esoteric, scientistic, and so on. This section could also mention the Junge Freiheit with a sentence or two. However, a whole section on the criticism of the Junge Freiheit (which is often regarded as a fringe right-wing publication) would not create a more balanced article. On the contrary, it would violate WP:NPOV because it would put way too much emphasis on one allegation which has neither been discussed in the mainstream media nor in the academic debate. --David Ludwig (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What you're really trying to argue is that undue weight is given to one accusation. But consider that other controversies are in no way better sourced, e.g. German_Wikipedia#Lutz_Heilmann_controversy. Until proven otherwise, we presume that JF that is used in many articles here on wiki is what the article on it states. Similarly, the presence of discussion on one bias does not exclude other opinions, that you are welcome to add. So far, no one has done so. This does not imply that until there is no paragraph on some 'right-wing bias' we cannot summarize the accusations of left-wing bias. We can and in fact, we should. After all, the length is to be agreed upon. My version is just a version, that is up to change just like other paragraphs in the controversy section. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that poor sourcing of some material on Wikipedia should be an argument for introducing more poorly sourced material. Also serious concerns have been raised above about the bias, reliability and relevance of the source in assessing the German Wikipedia as a whole. I think these issues should be discussed and disseminated here prior to re-introducing this material which clearly is disputed. --Elekhh (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Junge Freiheit is far right publication which is not reliable. The place for its views is in article about far right in Germany. http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/germany.htm The face of Germany's new right is young. Most of the editors of Junge Freiheit, the movement's unofficial journal, which circulates 35,000 copies a week, are in their twenties and thirties. Junge Freiheit says it is dedicated to fighting "ignorance about our nation, shame, fear of power, anti-authoritarian thought, pacifism, feminism, anti-militarism and obsession with the past." --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Junge Freiheit" article about my person was a revenge. Dr. Volkmar Weiss, a german editor of Mankind Quarterly, is blocked in Wikipedia [14], [15]. So he started his revenge against me and he used wrong informations. Thorsten Hinz (aka Doris Neujahr), a "Junge Freiheit"-editor who wrotes about the racist books from Volkmar Weiss [16], made an article with this wrong informations about my person. It was a revenge, a payback - that's all. -- schwarze feder (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

@Molobo: JF is generally not regarded as far-right, there are some far-left Antifa activists who do so. In their opinion, everything that is located to the right of the SPD is suspicious for possible 'fascism'. The best way to characterize that newspaper is still right-wing or conservative. And you as a passionate and well-known Germanophobe are hardly the right person to point out anything about alleged german far-right.

@Schwarze Feder: the Vokmar Weiss connection is your own invention, we don't rely here on someone's personal insinuations or accusations of racism. The reason you were actually discussed by JF was exactly your WP:OR campaign of inventing all kinds of theories on 'discrimination' and disseminating those via German Wikipedia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The criticism of the Junge Freiheit is a frequent pattern used by far right media and activists, aiming at the credibility of the German edition of Wikipedia. Since a lot of revisionists, ultra-catholic groups, racists and neo-nazis do not accept the way German Wikipedia presents topics on society, history or politics, they try to discredit the authors of these articles as "left wingers", "communists", "germanophobes", "liberal fascists" or "jew friends". Scientific sources are being criticised as unreliable if they do not support right-wing views. Media like the Junge Freiheit support this campaign by writing articles about this supposed "left-wing bias" and overwhelming "political correctness", but this all just an attempt of massive lobbying for right-wing, revisionist or racist positions.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not post comments just in order to have a vendetta on your political opponents. VF regards the JF as generally located within the right wing of the democratic spectrum. Thus, that paper (the real topic of dicussion here) does not qualify as media that you refer to in your comment. Obviously, there are other critics of the far-left activities in Wikipedia, like M.Cyron in his blog, or incidentally, me. But this is beside the point. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

@Miacek The reason you were actually discussed by JF was exactly your WP:OR campaign - thats wrong. The "Junge Freiheit" star reporter Thorsten Hinz has all his informations from Volkmar Weiss. It was Volkmar Weiss who has called with my Ph.D. adviser and it was Weiss who said, I'm not known as a Ph.D. student. I built the Portal:Diskrimnierung - for the "Junge Freiheit" it's an act of stalinism. -- schwarze feder (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, ok, no-one cares about your personal grudges, publish your account in a journal and then cite it if you wish. JF never accused you of stalinism. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they accused me of reading Pierre Bourdieu. And of beeing not married: "Nur 27 Prozent leben in fester Partnerschaft, lediglich 15 Prozent sind verheiratet. Ein Grund für das soziale Defizit mag sein, daß die Autoren durchschnittlich zwei Stunden am Tag mit Wikipedia verbringen." I'm sorry for this "social deficit". -- schwarze feder (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Federal Ministry of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Germany(2004) states the weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit (JF, Young freedom) continues to offer a forum for right-wing extremists [17] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no point of cherrypicking some obsolete criticism from 2004 when we can count on later court rulings and the more recent summary that I cited an incidents.In the 2009 VF report, JF is mentioned nowhere at all (you can download it at the VF site here). Even if it were mentioned, this would not render all the articles in that newspaper unreliable. For comparison, the Junge Welt is qualified as far-left in the 2009 report, yet one could use it in certain occasions with definite reservations.
Just like in Poland Gazeta Wyborcza and Najwyższy Czas! represent very different points of view and some of the articles in both are highly POVed so to say, both can be used. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have any remarks regarding Gazeta Wyborcza or other newspapers please direct them at appropriate discussion pages.The focuse here is Junge Freiheit, which clearly is seen by several observers as far right newspaper, and with numerous examples of its attitude: National Socialism of course also exists today as a current in Germany. It does not serve as a model for the NPD, but we try to integrate the national-socialist current, along with the national-liberals and national-conservatives, as insisting on divisions between them only aids our political opponents.”(Junge Freiheit, 24 September 2004, p. 2) If you believe that this newspaper which publishes such statements as above is reliable take it to WP:RS. Obviously the majority of contributors here do not see this publication as such. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did you copy this rubbish? Sorry to say, but this is patent falsification. You can check the articles really published on September 24, 2004 p. 2 in that newspaper. Nowhere is such nonsense written there. So, present your supposed source! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Straight from here[18]. It seems you didn't bother to read it. It's just one of examples of statements by extremist right-wingers that Junge Freiheit publishes.Anyway the discussion, since you are the only one here it seems that defends Junge Freiheit, with majority against, I see no reason to discuss this further, as we have a consensus. Have a nice day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, when proven wrong, just goodbye. Very well, I don't need your presence here but I will answer your last comment, too.

1. here the VS had made a mistake: on page 2 of that newspaper issue, there's an editorial located where the newspaper explained that it is pity (a result of criminal neglect by the authorities) that such a party like NPD was successful in receiving much electoral support from the electorate
2. on page 3 I managed to find the interview you referred to. It was not an opinion of the newspaper, as you presented it to be, but a citation from an interview with the NPD leader U. Voigt. In Poland, marginal figures are also sometimes interviewed, and sometimes by mainstream newspapers, too, aren't I right?
3. the very VS report you cited also lists ugly passages from U.Voigt's interviews to other newspapers, e.g. Berliner Zeitung (29. October 2004, p. 6). This does not make those newspapers themselves far-right! Berliner Zeitung is not even right-wing, it is centre-left, you ignorant troll!
4. the section whence you cherrypicked this citation to create the wrong impression that Junge Freiheit itself had such an agenda, deals precisely with Far-right political organizations like that of U.Voigt. The section does not treat newspapers, the citations were meant by the VS staff to prove Voigt's positions, not those of VS or let alone Berliner Zeitung.
5. in the 2004 report you linked, there's indeed a passage really critical of the JF

   Published in Berlin, the weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit (JF, Young freedom) continues to offer a forum for right-wing extremist authors although the newspaper itself is not a focus of observation by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

   I have covered this at the Incident's board already. The newspaper was criticized, e.g. for frequently publishing interviews with far-right figures. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to limit ourselves to JF publication of Voight statments about "national Socialism current"

Other sources about JF:

• Journalists in Europe - 1994

Eastern Germany is referred to in the pages of Junge Freiheit as "Mitteldeutschland" (with the implication that parts of Poland belong to Germany)

• GERMANY’S NEW RIGHT

Jan Herman Brinks The periodical Junge Freiheit, which also attracts interview partners from the conservative establishment, tends to cross the line between conservatism and right-wing extremism on a more or less regular basis. Prominent New Right authors who write for Junge Freiheit include Karlheinz Weissman, whose views on democracy are clearly based on the ideas of Carl Schmitt;

• The use of racist,antisemitic and xenophobic elements in political discourse High-level panel meeting on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Paris, 21 March 2005 ECRI:ECRI: European Commission against Racism and Intolerance November 2005

Before enlargement, the new right journal Junge Freiheit, on sale at newsstands, published many articles on the theme of the “invasion” from eastern Europe, the “Romanian immigrants problem”, the “crime wave” and the “cost of Poland’s accession” – all variations on the theme of the “danger from the east”, the leitmotiv of German ultra-nationalism

• Antisemitism and xenophobia in Germany after unification Hermann Kurthen,Werner Bergmann,Rainer Erb

Rescuing certain figures of the Third Reich from the taint of ignominy is a regular feature of historical articles in the Junge Freiheit page 202

Careful scrutiny of the rhetorical stragies of the writers for Junge Freiheit discloses how this neonationalism works(...)facts are tendentiously woven together to produce a historical representation that emphasises the victimisation of the German people durign the war and stresses the atrocities comitted by the Soviets and their Western Allies.In a series of articles entitled "Fifty Years After" the focus is almost entirely fixated on the suffering of German citizens on home from tanthe brave actions of individual German soldiers, as if the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities against civilians never existed.

• Where have all the fascists gone? Tamir Bar-On page 202

In the German magazine Junge Freiheit in 2005, de Benoist echoed the "third way" fascism theses of Sternhell or Mosse (1999) when he called on Schmitt to argue that the "adversary of yesterday is the ally of tomorrow"

• Extreme right activists in Europe: through the magnifying glass Bert Klandermans,Nonna Mayer

Those two organisations are obviously from violent ones.They(Junge Freiheit and Die Republikaner) provide stereotypes and prejudices concerning foreigners and refugees, as well as slogans(such as foreigners out!) and an ideological frame legitimizing their acts.REF and JF thus play a part in fostering discrimination of minorities in Germany.

• Guilt, Suffering, and Memory: Germany Remembers Its Dead of World War II Gilad Margalit

"extremist Junge Freiheit" page 273

The list can go on. But I think that is enough. And as written before-the consensus is against you. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I proved that the Verfassungsschutz, contrary to your presumptions that you probably based on google search and superficial reading, regards the newspaper within the “democratic spectrum” as they say, you have done google search (or even google books search!) and found a number of critical voices.
But in a democratic world (that is a sphere equally contrary to local nationalists like you and new left activists who have hegemony in German wiki and now showed up to defend their positions) - in a democratic world it is only natural to have plurality of opinions. This was the case with the Economist that has been severly criticized by different segments, but which does not make the paper unusable for us.

By doing your trick I could easily find sources that label JF as 'conservative' or 'conservative-liberal', but those do not help us reach a conslusion. Neither do we need it. Accidentally, even one of the sources you referred to quite well summarizes the positions of JF: “it has its roots in nationalist conservatism, elitarism, and right-wing traditionalism,” also admitting that the newspaper distances itself editorially from neo-Nazism and the extreme right (the author insinuates, that they are doing so so as to mask their wicked intentions but this is just his opinion, in my opinion more of a conspiracy theory). Remember that the German political spectrum is much more to the left, compared with, say, Poland (not only LPR but also PiS would probably be far-right in German terms). Thus, I see no reason why the opinion of such authors, shared by many people, not just marginal figures, should be excluded from the critical cover of Wikipedia. Articles in Junge Freiheit are no more controversial than those in The Christian Post, the opinion of which has rightly been cited here in suitable places. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

that the newspaper distances itself editorially from neo-Nazism and the extreme right

From the same source" not just a few of the newspaper's readers harbor antisemitic resentment and are addicted to conspiracy theories, viewing the newspaper's moderate tone as a necessary tactical concession to German democracy and its strict laws against public incitement and neo-Nazi propaganda

Also see: The beast reawakens Martin A. Lee page 289 Stein tried to distance himself from the neo-Nazi underground so as to not undermine Junge Freiheit efforts to build bridges to nationalist minded individuals in the political and business establishemnt.But Herbert Schnoor, the interior minister of North Rhine Wethphalia saw through the ruse."I consider the "New Right" more dangerous than the right extremists of the old" he declared As to your opinion-we know it, however the consensus is against your opinion at the moment, as are the sources. Have a nice day. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of articles by Levke Clausen

About [19]: While FAZ can generally be regarded as a reputable newspaper, I don't think the articles by Levke Clausen about Wikipedia have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The extreme sloppiness of her August 2010 Wikipedia coverage [20] forced FAZ to issue a correction (see note at the bottom - a rare event in the paper), after Wikimedia Deutschland[21] and the well-respected media watchblog Bildblog[22] had pointed out major errors; the central claim of her article also received a critical remark in Perlentaucher[23]. And her September 2010 coverage [24] of a conference about Wikipedia likewise contains major blunders (e.g. the photo is claimed to have been taken at the described conference in Leipzig, but in fact shows a different event five months earlier in Amsterdam[25]).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Leuchtschnabelbeutelschabe (it's about deletions)

Just by chance I found this hidden text in the section "Size, coverage and popularity". It's interesting, because this entry "Leuchtschnabelbeutelschabe" has been deleted finally, and moved to the "Humorarchiv" (humour archive) [26] in 2008. Nonetheless, it cannot be found by simply searching Wikipedia. I don't know what to do with this information; update or omit? --W-sky (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from the article (hidden text):

Yet despite its rejection of articles on fictional subjects, the German Wikipedia is keeping at least one fictitious entry: it has had an entry on the nonexistent insect "Leuchtschnabelbeutelschabe" since January 2003, which was kept after deletion discussions in January 2005 and June 2006; more recent requests for deletion are no longer even discussed. However, this article is an exception as it is considered (according to the deletion request discussions) to be comparable to the fictitious entry Stone louse in a German medical encyclopedic dictionary as the German Wikipedia's "classic" mascot joke entry. The German Wikipedia doesn't usually tolerate fictitious entries.

References

Edited pages

Why on the German pages can't I edit pages with my English wiki user account? Do i have to create a separate user account ₭₦→ ^{talk • contribs} 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fictitious entries - excessive detail?

A recent addition to this article created, in my opinion, a rather distorted picture regarding the German Wikipedia's handling of fictitious entries. Added by Angr:

Yet despite its rejection of articles on fictional subjects, German Wikipedia does not reject fictitious entries; it has had an entry on the nonexistent insect "Leuchtschnabelbeutelschabe" since January 2003, which was kept after deletion discussions in January 2005 [27] and June 2006 [28] [29]; more recent requests for deletion are no longer even discussed [30].

"German Wikipedia does not reject fictitious entries" looks to me as if the German Wikipedia routinely accepts fictitious entries, which is not the case. As one can gather from the mentioned deletion discussions, the main point of those arguing for keeping the article was that it serves as a kind of mascot for the German Wikipedia comparable to Pschyrembel's (medical dictionary) Stone louse; the reason given for keeping by an admin was "Die LSBS ist Kulturgut. Es ist konsens, daß die LSBS als alleiniger Nihilartikel auf dewp bleibt" ("The LSBS is an object of cultural value. It is consensus that the LSBS stays as the only Nihilartikel [fictituous entry] in the German Wikipedia (dewp)"). Well, it's not really consensus, there were also many who said that the article should be deleted, but it's obviously still the prevailing opinion. Anyway, usually the German Wikipedia deletes fictitious entries. (de:Steinlaus is not a fictitious entry but a "real entry" about the fictional louse and Pschyrembel's fictitious entry.) There might be one or two more accepted fictitious entries, I can't remember right now, but certainly not much more. Therefore I modified Angr's addition to reflect this.

Still - is the whole issue worth mentioning at all in our article about the German Wikipedia? Four references for an issue that is not really of huge importance in the German Wikipedia's bigger picture? Gestumblindi 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that at least one (if not more) fictitious entries are allowed at de-wiki but not at en-wiki, and indeed are generally unexpected and unwelcome in encyclopedias (except possibly as copyright traps, clearly not the case in a GFDL encyclopedia) makes it highly notable that the German Wikipedia has one and refuses to remove it despite the number of people who have asked for its removal. (In my opinion, it's also a perfect testament to the unreliability of German Wikipedia in general, but I wouldn't say so in the article.) —Angr 14:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fictitious entries are not that uncommon in encyclopedias; in fact, they can almost be called a tradition - Fictitious entry#Official_sources and de:Fingierter Lexikonartikel#Fundstellen give many examples of reputable lexica/encyclopedias containing fictitious entries. The purpose of most of them is not a copyright trap but to show that the creators of an otherwise dead-serious work retain a sense of humor; for example, Pschyrembel's Steinlaus (stone louse) certainly doesn't work as a copyright trap (it was already well-known as the invention of German humorist Loriot) - still, nobody would call Pschyrembel's medical encyclopedia unreliable because of this. In fact it's a standard work one can see in most medical practices. Gestumblindi 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Leuchtschnabelbeutelschabe" has been deleted. Kdammers (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

"That procedures have made authors leave Wikipedia; new authors, who just saw their first contribution deleted after a few days of work, as well as long-standing authors that are disappointed about deletions of articles that have been online and worked on since years." What does this mean? Is "that" supposed to be "those"? Or is a main verb missing? Kdammers (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism in the Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung

Odd, how any attempt to add sourced criticism, esp. concerning alleged political bias/manipulations, is immediately removed by the 'interested parties' from the German Wikipedia with no attempt at explaining their erasures first. The section on criticism in PAZ is well-sourced and neutrally presented and hence should stay there in the article amongst other controversies as no reason other than WEINTHEGERMANWIKIDONTLIKEIT has been presented.Estlandia (dialogue) 08:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, Mr. Man-on-a-mission. This paper is totally insignificant, and the article in question is defamatory crap. Stefan64 (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles in the paper are just as relevant as coverage in other media outlets, that is also reported here in this article. If you don't have any serious argument but childish namecalling ('crap', 'man on a mission'), you might wanna stop your engagement. If anyone is acting like a single-purpose account then based on your recent contributions it's you, not me. Your only purpose here seems to be censoring material somewhat critical of the German Wiki. Estlandia (dialogue) 10:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone needs additional information about the background of this marginal dispute – he will be welcome to read my documentation about this conflict of interests on de:WP. Regards--KarlV :  DISC  10:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Well-said! Since it is a conflict of interest: a newspaper publishes a couple of articles where they treat political POV pushing in a Wikipedia edition and now the very users concerned pop up to eliminate all references to the unpleasant coverage in media! Estlandia (dialogue) 11:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Karl) Note: This user (formerly User:Miacek, see de:User:Miacek) is known to vigorously promote right-wing POV at the German Wikipedia. Most of his “translated” articles here are highly selective collections of claims that mostly feature viewpoints of the German far right or even right-wing extremists and that do not include the current state of the public and scientific debate in germany although it is well known to this user. See for example Hans-Helmuth Knütter before my revert and compare it with the German article − even Google translate should be sufficient to see the differences.

His latest edits in this article follow a well-known pattern: debates that have finally been resolved (usually not to his contentment) at the German edition are carried over to the English edition. Since en: does not have the manpower nor the necessary sources and informations to control these edits, political POV (and in this case even worse: ultra right-wing and right-wing extremist POV) widely goes unnoticed. I do not have the time, let alone the nerves, to put up with this kind of bold POV pushing here. My considerations are simple: the damage is greater if he acts like this at the German site so I am playing the watchdog there. English articles are not the first adress for German-speaking readers when they are seeking information, so it is not giving me sleepless nights. However, I consider this user's behaviour highly harmful to the English Wikipedia. All in all, he is making Wikipedia's section on German politics worse by adding articles so you really should consider putting an end to this if you are interested in a half-decent account in these topics. I will also post this on the talk page of the corresponding wiki project. If you would like to have additional information on this user's history and behavior, feel free to contact me on my talk page on de: or ask de:User:Hozro/de:User:KarlV.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a well-known user here on English Wiki (unlike you and consorts), have performed over 8,000 edits and started 80 articles. My colleagues don't need the assistance of your DE-wiki watchdogs like the ardent political POV pusher KarlV. Note that this is not DE-wiki, hence your personal assaults against me are highly unacceptable, besides they lack any basis whatsoever - e.g. Most of his “translated” articles here are highly selective collections of claims that mostly feature viewpoints of the German far right. If anyone cared to take a look at my userpage, it would become evident that many of my articles are indeed translations, but mostly from Russian Wiki - which you and your consorts cannot evaluate since you don't speak the language and most probably have zero knowledge of the topic - and have nothing to do with 'far-right', German or otherwise. This is simply slanderous. PS. How did you all suddenly pop up here? Did anyone shout at your infamous Vandalismusmeldung that someone has dared to raise criticism of your far-left-ridden quagmire? Estlandia (dialogue) 11:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That´s a very interesting attitude.--KarlV 12:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should not discuss about POV or bias or the importance of the PAZ, but keep this argument on a factual base. In my view, the problem is that an article in the PAZ is a first-party source for this issue, not an independent, third-party source, as the PAZ is a party in this debate itself. We would need coverage in third-party sources to establish the relevance of this incident for Wikipedia. As long as this is not given, the section is not sufficiently sourced. Has any third-party publication reported about this conflict? --RJFF (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Picaper is actually a third party and I still don't see a reason why a party (if we consider PAZ as such) is not a valid source of coverage (criticism). Estlandia (dialogue) 15:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Picaper is a regular writer for PAZ and not an independent third party. So you see - the rules here seem to be the same in both wikis.--KarlV 15:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Any source for that assertion? --KarI Vl (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I inserted some third-party source may others insert more. --KarI Vl (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed Sue Gardner quote

Just to explain this, as in the summary, I do not think a Wikimedia Foundation employee noting that a specific edition of Wikipedia is the best edition and having those other qualities is valid. The statement isn't supported by anything else factual in the transcript (e.g., no non-vague data are given to explain why these assertions are valid), so I do not see why this should be treated differently from anyone else stating their own site is "the best" or whatnot. Nothing against the German Wikipedia at all, but having a Wikimedia official's opinion of Wikipedia in the lead of an article about Wikipedia is POV. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Subsidies

Source is the talk page of the project manager. I've added a reference. Budget ist 140K a year, total amount 140K*3 = 420K for 3 years. Heizer 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia user talk page is not a reliable source. If this hasn't been discussed outside Wikipedia, it's probably not notable enough for us to mention here. —Angr 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Paid editing Wikipedia pages in economically developed country, unfortunately, more and more to be pitied. Authors and administrators such topic as [<the King Albert Second of Belgium>] response to know the king personally have a red phone on the policy and de Politie on the road all Wiki -.. User's what has to an improvement geeussert the discussion just a suggestion of course, such. hard job costs a little, yes. But. Even small wiki authors earn his little covert payments. 4-ier garbage bags for Christmas next to the house, such as and. of course. Who pays can order something. But. Often it is not a payment or be talked about a paid editing Wikipedia pages Rather, through the efforts of personal opinion Wiki - author's. manipulate authors regarding one or the other topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon anne (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)