Talk:Wikipedia community/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

add link to AOL Community Leader Program

I think a link to *AOL Community Leader Program should be added under See Also. Wikipedians are online volunteers, and this AOL program was similar.

Jcravens42 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased against conservatives

Wikipedia has decided that Fox News is not reliable. Why? Because Fox, althoug not totally conservative, does have conservative overtones and does not bow dow to the Far Left liberals insanity. Wikipedia follows liberals who do not like diversity of thought. It is much easier for them to try to destroy something than to allow different views. What a shame that Wikipedia has is just another liberal outlet that cannot be trusted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.70.147 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Caricature

The Wikipedia community is diverse.

I suggest adding the caricature File:COLABORACION eng.jpg to the section "Criticism". In my opinion, it will humorously illustrate the section. – Gebu (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Update?

The demographics diagram is from 2008. Do we have more recent data? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021 | Word "Wikipedian" in Oxford Dictionary - dead link

Hello collegues, there's a dead link to the sentence that the word Wikipedian has been added to the OxfordDictionaries.com in August 2012: <ref>{{cite web|title=Hella ridic new words to make you lolz: ODO August 2012 update|work=OxfordWords blog|url=http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/08/hella-ridic-new-words-to-make-you-lolz/|access-date=27 September 2012|date=23 August 2012|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]}}</ref> Keep up De Internationale (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC) De Internationale (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, De Internationale. Thanks for pointing that out. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: With pleasure - working together. Thanks for handling this and for the welcoming words & cookies on my en userpage. De Internationale (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure, De Internationale! Sdrqaz (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021 | Paragraph on history

A paragraph in the history of the community is missing. Instead of this structure standard, the article now dives deep into genderissues in the first place. Maybe this could be changed, moderated. Thanks in advance, keep up. De Internationale (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC) De Internationale (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up, @RandomCanadian:. In other words: please set up as paragraph 1. === History === with a starter line: "The Wikipedia community has been initiated on the 10th of January 2001 by an appeal from Larry Sanger, editor in chief of the first online encyclopedia Nupedia in a mail to Nupedia-editors: "Let's make a Wiki!". Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html After the first positive reactions from the group, Sanger baptised the project Wikipedia, Wales took care of registering the website wikipedia.com and installing the editing software wiki. Source a) URL= http://web.archive.org/web/20030425173342/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000678.html Title= [Nupedia-l] Nupedia's wiki: try it out. Source b) url= http://web.archive.org/web/20030414021138/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000680.html title= [Nupedia-l] . The wiki... . Use the _wikipedia_! De Internationale (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now I think it would be preferable if we could source this to secondary sources, not primary ones (comments in a mailing list are inherently WP:PRIMARY, and interpretation such as "positive reactions" requires secondary sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your sharp & balanced judging eye, RandomCanadian, part of the text indeed is an interpretation. Primary sources can be used with care and nothing else documents the start of the community this exactly. The domainname wikipedia.com has been registered on Januari 13th 2001 (https://lookup.icann.org/lookup). Secondary sources can be found under the (new) Dutch article I've put some work into nl:Wikipediagemeenschap. Could you please edit something that's 'right' from the proposal. A new paragraph "History" could give way to enhance this article on the specific subject "history".De Internationale (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Gender diversity too narrow

I feel that section should be changed to diversity in general. Because I know Wikimedia community is more diverse than that. There are people from various parts of the world and various point of views contributing.CycoMa (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Words

@Larry Hockett: if you don't like me posting in your talk page, fine, continue with the talk here then. By the way, saying me lecturing you is rather exaggerating and rude, while you are pretty much doing the same thing. This is the basic of a debate so please don't get offended that easily. The confusion is not nonexistent just because you think so, and I'm not talking about "editor", I'm talking about "individual contributor" and overlapping it with editor. TiniLith (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the wording of the lead is a bit botched, but I won't argue, as I have faith that other editors will make tweaks if they agree. On the edit related to Wiknic, I am not sure why we are including the idea that it could be held before July 4th. This was probably true at one time, but it hasn't been held before the 4th in years, according to Wikipedia:Wiknic. If we take out the part about the 4th, it won't be a run-on sentence anymore. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Move from main space to project space?

@TylerMagee: Was there a discussion to move this article from the main space to project space? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Saddam Hossain

Saddam Hossain Smkhan123 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Crime?

In Belarus, a Wikipedian was sentenced to 2 years in prison for editing Wikipedia. Should a section on human rights or 'crime' be included? https://mediazona.by/article/2022/03/29/wiki-2 Victor Grigas (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Rollback edits

Why does this always happen 2607:FEA8:FE10:7FE5:E6:5724:16CA:E9B0 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The "Demographics" section has the first paragraph about the general community demographics while the majority of remainder of the section is about women demographics. The "Criticism" mentions "attitudes towards newcomers" and "gender bias and lack of female contributors", and there is also the criticism of "Unfair treatment of women".

My point is that while advocating issues of women on Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles related to women, and Wikipedia criticism , it seems there is an unfair bias and mention of anything positive such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, as ways the collective community is seeking to counter women bias, so we end up with a lack of balance and neutral point of view. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia movement" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia movement and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 3#Wikipedia movement until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Views down

Look like an edit or edits may have been made on September 2 or 3 that greatly lowered the page views. Anyone know of a change? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks as if a link on some other page (maybe several) was changed from Wikipedia community to Wikipedians, which is a redirect to Wikipedia community. The comparison of the two is dramatic[1] (permalink) but the overall total (shown by including redirects to Wikipedia community in the analysis) doesn't seem to show any systematic changes[2] (permalink) though it's a little alarming until you set the scale to begin at zero rather than 200. NebY (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Possibly this change? NebY (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello NebY, thanks, the redirect views did increase so you probably found it. I've always thought that the page redirected to would count the total views, apparently each redirect has its own count which is not reflected onwards. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn It's quite surprising. There's nothing in the Page information or Page statistics that even hints that views via redirects are excluded - they just say "Page views in the past 30 days" and "Pageviews (30 days)". Presumably the figures for this article have dropped sharply and will carry on doing so for the next couple of weeks (currently they're 6,318 and 6,462 respectively). The chart's FAQ, under "How are redirects counted?", indicates it's computationally expensive to include arrivals via redirects, but now I'm wondering if that should be made clearer. Do you think it would be worth raising on one of the Village Pump pages? NebY (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone will probably comment here. Interesting to find that out, although most pages don't have major redirects lots of them do, so views have to be judged by how many major redirects are feeding readers in. Good find on the computer numbers NebY, thanks. If it takes up too much computer usage to count them doesn't seem much to do about it, good to know though. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Update tag

@JayCubby: Can you explain why you've added the Update tag? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I could be mistaken here, but a lot of the press coverage seems to be from 2014-15 or before. JayCubby (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)