Food for thoughtEdit

  • "The vast majority of sources throughout all of history say that Pluto is a planet. The moment a celebrity dies, the vast majority of sources will say that the person is alive. The day a famous person (usually, a woman) changes her name due to marriage, the vast majority of sources will give her previous name. The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia. We often have to make judgment calls about that."–Jimbo Wales (here)
  • "Either Jimbo is the hands-on chief from ~2005 or he's the benevolent symbolic leader of 2013. You can't pick and choose which Jimbo Era to visit like you're Doctor Who in his TARDIS. – Tarc (here)
  • "Our primary stakeholders are i) Wikimedia editors and other contributors, who have created the overwhelming majority of the value in the projects and who are responsible for the goodwill that the projects and the Wikimedia Foundation enjoy, ..." – Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles
  • "The word lede has always given me the impression that there is a knowledgeable/powerful group of editors who use an esoteric language and have no wish to include new members in their group." – PamD (here)
  • "I just read a pop-science book by a respected author. One chapter, and much of the thesis, was based around wildly inaccurate data which traced back to ... Wikipedia. To encourage people to be on their toes, I'm not going to say what book or author." – xkcd (here)
  • "I recommend... WP:BEFORE be absolutely mandatory for a BLP PROD, or for any other form of deletion where it would be relevant"– DGG (here)
  • "If the community believes it is acceptable to keep wholly unreferenced articles about living people around for THREE YEARS (and that's what I was deleting) then sod the community." Scott MacDonald (here)
  • "Sticky Prods should be exempt from wp:Before in that they may be applied without first searching for sources other than within the article and its previous versions"–WereSpielChequers (here)
  • "I also am more and more supporting living peoples ability to opt out of the project, more and more its clear to me that not only are we unable to keep malicious and defamatory content and additions from being mirrored through the project to all corners of the world wide web especially in regard to semi notable living people but that there is also some support amongst unverified users to allow this."–Off2riorob (here)
  • "more than 380 million people use Wikipedia and its sister sites every month", "help sustain our joint enterprise with a modest donation"–Jimmy Wales (here)
  • "How should 1.3 million US dollars in Wikimedia donations be spent?" – Banner posted by the Funds Dissemination Committee in March 2013.
  • "many of the hooks don't work with a 'Did you know?' format (which promises something enlightening or surprising and counter-intuitive.) I saw one today that was of the nature of 'did you know that a very obscure so and so was a nephew of an equally obscure so and so?'"– Bali ultimate(here)
  • "Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities)"–Hans Adler (here)
  • "The only people who don't make mistakes are the people who don't try to do anything."–Malleus Fatuorum (here)
  • "We need to make it clear, perhaps by restricting article creation, that the focus of the English Wikipedia needs to be on improving existing articles rather than creating new ones."–Mr.Z-man (here)
  • "We throw brand-new potential editors directly into shark-infested waters, then yell at them for splashing at the sharks. :)" Brion Vibber (here)
  • "Fascinating watching high traffic FAs erode over time though...." Casliber (here)
  • "It is better to have no information, than to have information like this [BLP anecdote], with no sources."–Jimmy Wales (here)
  • "If a BLP subject's age, year or date of birth is unsourced, contributors are welcome to make an attempt to source it but they don't have to. It is OK to delete any unsourced statement about a living person. Editors are not required to second-guess the potential for harm and there's no need to wait for a request from the subject."– Pointillist (here)
  • "only bots should be allowed to edit BLPs, living editors have a COI.... we need to find some way to tell new users that we should be more focused on quality rather than quantity. If that means they don't stay, oh well, if keeping a new user means putting up with a bunch of crappy articles that no one but them cares about, then that's too high a price." –Mr.Z-man (here)
  • "The best answer to your critics will always be excellence and maybe a hot date who gropes you publicly."–Banjeboi
  • "a poor-quality chatroom with an inaccurate encyclopedia attached."—iridescent (here)
  • "an exploitative cult running on sweatshop labour."—Seth Finkelstein in The Guardian
  • Raul's Razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie."
  • "Not all business articles are spam"–Eastlaw
  • "This article needs more {{Fact}}s. A couple of sentences didn't have one"-Angry mob mulls options
  • "Wikipedia is most useful not when it's a substitute for other sources, but when it's a substitute for ignorance."–Sarcasticidealist (here)
  • "We draw pictures in the sand. Between waves, someone might read a well-written article and be moved."–Moni3 (here)
  • "What the fuck is all this cocksucking shit all about?"–Moni3 (here)
  • Antandrus's observations on Wikipedia behavior ...which Beeblebrox calls "the best essay on Wikipedia ever." (here).
  • Awickert's Curmudgeonly opinions, e.g. "Accounts with sanctimonious usernames are usually up to no good."
RIP Adrianne Wadewitz
January 6, 1977 – April 8, 2014
  • Awadewit's Wikipedia Weekly interview. I couldn't find the words to express how shocked and saddened I was in 2014 to hear of her death after a climbing accident. She was an inspiration to me when I started editing here and my heart goes out to those who were close to her. She left her mark on the world and will be sorely missed.
  • Alison's farewell comments
  • Jossi's user page and farewell comments
  • Recent ArbCom dicta, e.g. on Wikiprojects and proposed principles
  • Moreschi's Wikithoughts
  • David Runciman reviewing The Wikipedia Revolution
  • "It's dev speak. Just nod politely and back away slowly. =)" xeno (here)
  • On the need to avoid collateral damage (here).
  • "I have to imagine that most admins are not Evil Sockpuppets, merely because most admins are tragically boring."–Tznkai (here)
  • "The only important thing is whether Wikipedia was made better with Law as an admin/editor. Undoubtedly, it was, until the witchhunters found out who he really was."–User:Majorly (diff).
  • "Lastly, when the fuck did it become ok to sock around a block/ban? I'm appalled at the number of editors who are grousing about blocking an editor who socked around a ban under the assumption that they were good people on the 'new' account."–User:Protonk (diff)
  • "We only die when nobody still alive remembers us." - Anon (here).
  • "OMG, I agree with Malleus on something! ;-)" - Fabrictramp (here)
  • Masterpieces of Wikipedia: An Exhibition (Francisco Goya's gimlet-eyed commentary on The Encyclopedia Which Anybody Can Edit). See also How Ceoil pictures wikipedia editors
  • An honorable mention goes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pissing contest, just because I keep breaking into laughter when I read it. Thanks, everyone.
  • "Wikipedia is a wiki" ( here). "A wiki is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors" ( here).
  • '"has created featured content FA/GA/DYK" really seems like some kind of homophobic slur' Keepscases (#24 here)
  • Why it's a waste of time fixing redirects
  • Sure, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but when we're wasting so many ounces on so many preventions that are unnecessary we've become pennywise and pound foolish.–Shereth (here)
  • The only sensible place to move ITN to is "nowhere". In a project with more than its fair share of bad ideas, showcasing what are by definition the articles most hastily-written and prone to edit-warring (and then wondering why the general public think Wikipedia articles are unstable and prone to editwarring) is somewhere near the top. – iridescent (here)
  • I often find it satisfying to remove some junk, just to get started each day, but if you want to remove articles, look for the utter junk at the very bottom. New Pages has a good deal of it, and the unsourced BLPs offer many opportunities this way. – DGG (here)
  • "Well, it is an encyclopedia. Maybe add an edit notice pointing out what an encyclopedia is, then tell them to reference their additions, else they be deleted.... encourage newbs to drop in raw urls and we'll do the rest." –Lara (here)
  • "Our chief weapon is blocking, blocking and page protection. Our two chief weapons are blocking and page protections and WP:ANI. Our THREE chief weapons are blocking, page protection, WP:ANI, and an almost fanatical devotion to policy and guideline. No, no, AMONGST OUR WEAPONRY, are such diverse elements as blocking, page protection, WP:ANI, an almost fanatical devotion to policy and guideline, and these really neat icons." –Avi (here)
  • "adminship is a big deal and does create a semi-permanent class of superusers, so candidates should take this process with the importance it deserves.... Yes, I disagree with NOBIGDEAL" – SandyGeorgia (here)
  • "All the best trolls are administrators." – Jehochman (h∗re)
  • "Personally I think that adding reliably sourced content is a basic skill that all admins should have." – WereSpielChequers (here)
  • "a growing proportion of our active editors are old hands who have the experience to be admins but are not admins. That's pretty much a recipe for conflict between the admins and the community." – WereSpielChequers (here)
  • "RfA is essentially analogous to a political election. You do what you have to do to get votes. Once you make it through the beauty pageant, then you can eventually return to being yourself" – Scottywong (here)
  • "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."–Philip K. Dick, (quoted in Greenberg, J., Koole, S. L., & Pyszczynski, T. (2004). Handbook of experimental existential therapy. p. 355.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link))
  • "If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it." – The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia
  • Iridescent's sermon, about which Malleus said "of course Iridescent is once again quite right. It's the out-of-the-way articles that makes wikipedia stand out. You can find out about the 'big subjects' anywhere."
  • "fram comments doubleplusungood ungoodthinker malreports visualeditor refs unbugs setstatus unperson" – Scott Martin (here, with the edit summary →‎Diligent testing by Fram: rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling)
  • "I date back to punchcards, papertape, and Fortran IV. I don't know CSS." Edison (here)
  • "Punchcards, paper tape, and Algol 60 for me, and I still managed to learn CSS. It's not that tough." – Kww (here)
  • "I would rather rearrange or split the sentence to avoid the need for a comma. Short, simple, positive sentences - sentences that avoid too many subclauses - are best, in my opinion, although some may disagree, I suppose." – Aymatth2 (here)
  • "FAC is not a battleground. People are different. FAC criteria are purposefully a bit 'loose'. FAC coords are not your parents [...and more]" – Ealdgyth cracks the whip (highlighted by SandyGeorgia)

Useful placesEdit

Ideas that didn't succeed but might be resurrected:

External sites, tools etc:

I've also come to understand that sometimes the best way to reduce visual clutter in a article is simply to delete all the explicit pixel widths from thumbnail images. Feels like breath of fresh air, and respects each registered reader's preferences. (last updated) Pointillist (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects: