Wikipedia talk:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

Beginning

The beginning of this article says that "there is no question" that the Britannica is more complete and accurate than Wikipedia. I'm not so sure. If you're talking about, say, television shows, Wikipedia is a lot more complete. Anybody else think we should change this....? NoahB 20:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complete? Sure Wikipedia is more complete if you include information about the crying fangirl on an American television show as being relevant for judging the completeness of an encyclopedia. Accurate? Wikipedia's accuracy is really questionable. Many articles I have read show huge bias for American culture. As compared to Britannia - anybody who cites an encyclopedia deserves to get a failing grade. Wikipedia has become a religion to it's contributors. Lay people write articles believing them to be scholarly and it's their zeal for the project that drives them to make silly and irrelevant comparisons to EB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.240.114.224 (talk • contribs).

True, editing Wikipedia is a waste of time, but at least it's more useful than playing another game of Solitaire. This page should be deleted, though. Agent 78787 ^{talk contribs} 01:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I had to laugh when I got to the part at the bottom that says only 3 errors have been identified in Wikipedia over the years. I am still laughing. Are we talking about the same thing?

Some things moved out

I have pulled some things out because it is contested if they are errors at all. If we want this page to be effective and useful, we should list only those things that (1) are very clear errors in the EB and (2) are corrected in Wikipedia. The following entries don't seem to fit those criteria:

Submarine Incident in Korea

EB gives the year of the submarine incident near Kangnung as 1997 rather than 1996. But then, I think this isn't covered in Wikipedia at all... yet.

Transfinite Numbers

It's arguable that EB is correct with respect to the cardinality of the real numbers. It may simply be a matter of definition. In some texts, $\aleph _{1}$ is defined as the cardinality of the real numbers. The continuum hypothesis then asks the question whether there's anything between $\aleph _{0}$ and $\aleph _{1}$. not whether the cardinality of the reals is $\aleph _{1}$. Elliotte Rusty Harold 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Archimedean Solids

EB does not contain a definition or list of Archimedean solids. Britannica Student Encyclopedia contains the following definition:

in geometry, any one of 13 solids whose faces are all convex polyhedrons; first described by ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes; faces of one solid can represent more than one kind of

only this one..

only this one.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.121.193 (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Determinants

Under "determinant", EB says

Designating any element of the matrix by the symbol A_rc (the subscript r identifies the row and c the column), the determinant is evaluated by finding the sum of n! terms, each of which is the product of the coefficient (-1)^{r + c} and n elements, no two from the same row or column.

This is incorrect; it is a strange mixture of the Leibniz formula and the formula to develop a matrix along a row or column. See determinant.

• This seems to be correct. Consider this excerpt from determinant:

"For a general n-by-n matrix, the determinant was defined by Gottfried Leibniz with what is now known as the Leibniz formula:

$\det(A)=\sum _{\sigma \in S_{n}}\operatorname {sgn} (\sigma )\prod _{i=1}^{n}A_{i,\sigma (i)}$

The sum is computed over all permutations σ of the numbers {1,...,n} and sgn(σ) denotes the signature of the permutation σ: +1 if σ is an even permutation and -1 if it is odd. See symmetric group for an explanation of even/odd permutations."

Isn't the number of permutations n! as claimed above, and isn't the power of (-1) part the same as the even odd part? Isn't it also true that no two elements in a term are from the same row or column? I don't see the contradiction. --Esrogs 20:58, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the definition given is correct not incorrect --(talk to)AndrewCates 14:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

No, it can't be correct. If the elements are "not from the same row or column", which numbers r and s are chosen?

And for Esrogs' argument, no, the power of (-1) part is not the same, unless you show that r+s is even if and only if σ is an even permutation. --Fibonacci 02:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

• Of course the (-1)^{r + c} is incorrect. For example it gives +1 for the odd permutation (2 3) for n=3. The elements are A₁₁, A₂₃, and A₃₂. --Zero0000 07:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Olbers' paradox

The EB article about "Olbers' paradox" offers a resolution involving average lifetimes of stars which does not make sense. See Olbers paradox.

Deconstruction and method

The first sentence of EB's article on deconstruction calls it a "Method of philosophical and literary analysis." This directly contradicts Derrida's famous "Letter to a Japanese Friend", which states clearly that "Deconstruction is not a method and cannot be transformed into one." [1] (Deconstruction, Wikipedia's article, is currently [Feb 2004] self-contradictory on this topic.)

I'd rather say that Deconstruction would have been self-contradictory if Derrida had not said such a thing; but obviously, Derrida's statement should not prescribe how we talk about it nowadays. — mark ✎ 15:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Epimenides paradox

(i moved this out because it is being discussed in the article. resolve it here in discussion, and then post it or don't post it to the article. but keep the discussion off the front page. Slamorte 09:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC) )

In "number game" under "logical paradoxes" in EB it is claimed that the statement "All Cretans are liars", if uttered by a Cretan, is self-contradictory. This is false; see Epimenides paradox for the correction. Axel Boldt sent a letter to the math editor of EB to point this out and received an answer three months later saying that his "sources" disagreed and considered the text to be correct.

• According to the "correction," the statement is "necessarily false" if liar is taken to mean someone who always lies, so saying that it is a self-contradictory seems to be correct (though possibly not from the exact same line of reasoning assumed in EB) --Esrogs 20:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)~

so it all depends on whether this rather unusual definition is clearly given? --AndrewCates 14:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

No way! See the Wikipedia article Epimenides paradox. No matter what definition is used, there will be no contradiction, mainly because he said "All Cretans", and there are other Cretans, who may or may not be liars. --Fibonacci 01:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Right. Suppose Alice of Crete says, 'All Cretans are liars'. The solution to the "paradox" is that Alice of Crete is a liar, but Bob of Crete is not a liar (i.e. Alice lied, since some Cretans are not liars). --Tetromino 20:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But if Alice lied, and some Cretans are not liars, then maybe Alice didn't lie... Therein lies the paradox. --202.74.211.55 06:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? No. 202.74.211.55, your assertion makes no sense. If "Alice lied, and some Cretans are not liars," then Alice did indeed lie. Therein lies no paradox whatsoever. As for the case where all Cretans actually are liars (in the sense that they never tell the truth), read the article, and also the liar paradox article. --164.76.162.246 3 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

If you consider that a liar is a person who frequently lies, but is still capable of telling the truth; then you can see that in this perticular case, the cretan is telling the truth, while remaining a liar.

Some people are having a lot of trouble with this one. Let's assume that Crete is a very simple place where each person is either a consistent liar, or a consistently honest person, and that there is at least one Cretan in each group. If one of the liars states that "All Cretans are liars", he is, in fact, lying; likewise if he states "No Cretans are liars". An honest Cretan would say "Some Cretans are liars" David 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. But you forget the implied syllogism in the proposition. If Alice is Cretian, is a consistent liar and says "All Cretians are consistent liars", she automatically implies "I, Alice, am a consistent liar". Which is then true. Hence the paradox. The paradox should be seen on the author's characterisation, not on the stated honesty of all Cretians: Alice (or Epimenides) knows she's implying something true. A less controversial way to see this paradox would be for Epimenides to state: "I always lie".

It implies so, but is not equivalent. If Alice of Crete says "all Cretans are consistent liars" she is in fact implying that "I, Alice, am a consistent liar" but not the other way round - again, consider the case where there is at least a honest Cretan. She is implying something true, because you can imply anthing you want if the antecedent is false - see Logical conditional. There is no paradox. --Fibonacci 18:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The common misconception is that the logical negation of "All Cretans are liars" is "All Cretans are truthtellers". The actual logical negation of "All Cretans are liars" is "There is at least one Cretan that is not a liar".- Flooey 07:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! --Fibonacci 22:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the difficult part on this paradox, if she's saying the truth, therefore implying that all Cretans are liar, she's not one of them, therefore there is a paradox. In the other end if she's lying and not all of Cretans are liar there isn't any paradox because if the statement "all Cretans are liars" is a lie is implying that there must be some honest Cretans. Nichol Deaddis 09:31 16/12/05

So the statement "all Cretans are liars" is false, period. No contradiction here, as was originally claimed in EB. Therefore, it is an error of EB. Q.E.D. --Fibonacci 04:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The 15^th printed edition of the EB is corrected. Which edition(s) have the error? The online concise (free) version of the Britannica's article for 'liar paradox' starts off right, but then says that it's the same paradox as the one created by the statement "This sentence is false." [2] Jobarts^-Talk 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

GNAA troll in 1911 Britannica

On the History of Bucharest, 1911 Britannica writes:

More modern historians declare that it was originally a fortress, erected on the site of the Daco-Roman Thyanus, to command the approaches to Tirgovishtea, formerly the capital of Walachia.

I was surprised that I couldn't find anything on the mythical fortress of Thyanus, and then I realized the meaning:

"...a fortress erected on Thy-anus..."

Britannica has been trolled.

PS: they're also mixing historical ages in this phrase. Târgoviştea was built about a thousand years after the Daco-Romans. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 18:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Where the hell does it say that?142.177.49.2 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The original poster unfortunately linked to the LoveToKnow copy of the 1911 Britannica, which has the nasty habit of splitting articles into different web pages in mid-sentence. On their site, the quote is now found on anpother page - or on many other web copies of the 1911 Britannica, such as Wikisource's. Regards, High on a tree 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Qala'un Mosque (spelling)

Does EB actually spell "Cario" like that? Or was that just a mistake in copying from EB? -- John Owens (talk) 23:51, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

No, that was my typo :P. Good catch! — mark ✎ 08:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Deliberate errors

You do realise that large reference works contain several deliberate errors (usually on non-controversial and barely notable minor areas) to protect against copyright fraud - if the errors turn up in other reference works with similar content, they are highly likely to have been copied, and act as evidence of such in court. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See Nihilartikel. They might do so, but that doesn't excuse their mistakes. For the researcher relying on it, an error is still an error, whether deliberate or not. — Matt Crypto 18:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe a more accurate characterization, rather than errors, would be deliberate fictional entries. My understanding is that it is rare for an error to be introduced purposely; however, the use of fictional entries for the purpose of identifying copyright fraud is indeed done. See http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050829ta_talk_alford Anastrophe 22:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this page?

I question purpose of this page. When employees of Britannica read this page (see the last edit), they can fix the mistakes in EB easily, and thus it will always be obsolete. It's like there isn't such page about Wikipedia, because known errors get fixed quickly. Britannica is maybe a bit slower in this process, but can be still fast with respect to updates here. The real problem are unknown errors, not known. I would VFDed this page. Samohyl Jan 08:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they could fix them rapidly, but evidently they don't. Just because an error is known to us doesn't mean it's any less troublesome for anyone relying on EB. Soo 10:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

if they fix it, we have helped them: good! its not a competition; if it was, we would win =) -- Cannibalicious!

I'd just like to know how everybody's so sure that the only way EB can be wholly accurate is to have all their data in line with Wikipedia's.142.177.49.2 20:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood something. No one is demanding that Britannica should bow to the authority of Wikipedia - only to that of the facts. "The only way EB can be wholly accurate is to have all their data in line with" reliable sources, which are amply quoted on this page. Regards, High on a tree 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We can give a rebuttal to Samohyl Jan's comments a couple of years later: that is, to simply observe that Britannica haven't fixed many of the errors listed on this page. — Matt Crypto 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this page being misunderstood as an mere attack by Wikipedia on Britannica or as an actual comparison of the reliability of WP and EB, I have added this to make its purpose clearer:

"These examples can serve as useful reminders of the fact that no encyclopedia can ever expect to be perfectly error-free (which is sometimes forgotten when Wikipedia is compared to traditional encyclopedias), and as an illustration of the advantages of an editorial process where anybody can correct an error at any time. However, this page is not intended to be a comparison of the overall quality of both encyclopedias, nor as a dismissal of concerns about the reliability of Wikipedia."

Regards, High on a tree 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. — Matt Crypto 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Novograd-Volynsky

I removed this section:

EB gives the name of this pleasant Russian city as Novohrad-Volynskyy, an impressive average of one typo per word. However the Russian name is correctly given as Novograd-Volynsky.

It is either mockery or ignorance of the contributor. The city is an Ukrainian one, not Russian. The wikipedia article must be fixed accordingly, not to say that it is error-ridden. mikka (t) 00:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't Panic

What the heck is this "Don't Panic" article section supposed to mean? mikka (t) 00:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not in current version. David Spector (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Elsa Morante

See Talk:Elsa Morante for a mistake thah should be verified. David Shay 03:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Wouldn't a place where one can see the sources of the information be required? If I have to give sources in a research paper, shouldn't this article be complete with sources? I just think it is odd that everybody says, "Yes, this is correct." but has nothing to back it up. 3 October 2005

Of course, just like some basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia say. This is why some of us include sources for the errors they point out. Not everyone does that here; the reason is probably that this list points to Wikipedia articles and these should be sourced, so if all is well, you can go to the Wikipedia article and check out the sources there. You might also want to check out the following Wikipedia policies: Cite your sources, Check your facts, Reliable sources, and Verifiability. — mark ✎ 06:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing "Errors in Wikipedia that have been corrected in EB"

I'm curious why a page with nine edits, dating from February 2005 to October 2005, has been deleted.

Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica

The edits, at least by the author's descriptions, appear to be forthright. Are we to understand that no errors in Wikipedia have ever been corrected in EB? Perhaps the page should instead be entitled "Errors that were found in WP that were corrected by referencing EB". It seems disingenuous to have people submit a finding of an error in WP that's not in EB, another editor comes along and corrects that error, then the entry is wiped away since the error "no longer exists". It's using the 'immediacy' of WP to pretend that a finding of error never existed in the first place. Anastrophe 22:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The page was a spoof page that was meant to be always empty. The idea was that a "list of mistakes in Wikipedia" is nonsensical (because you might as well correct the error as list it, and someone will likely correct it pretty fast anyway), where as maintaining a list of current mistakes of Britannica makes perfect sense. This difference illustrates a strong argument in favour of Wikipedia. However, the humour was a little lame, and most people missed the point, so it was deleted. — Matt Crypto 22:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Are spoof pages accepted/appropriate for Wikipedia? I don't see how spoofs or humor - at least humor not as part of an entry specific to humor - are going to enhance the authority of wikipedia. Since the page has been deleted - after existing for almost seven months - apparently the point is moot. I've started a new entry that is more appropriate to the subject matter in question -

Wikipedia:Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_by_referring_to_accurate_entries_in_Encyclopædia_Britannica Anastrophe 03:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The bar is set considerably lower for the Wikipedia namespace than for the article namespace. grendel|khan 13:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That may be. my concern is that there seems to be almost no visually obvious way to discern the difference between the article namespace and the wikipedia namespace. for example, a google search for "errors encyclopedia britannica" brings up as the first hit the page in question. a casual web searcher would go to that page, and read it, but there is no indication - at least that i can discern easily - that it is not an actual wikipedia article, but rather something else that is held to a lower standard. that seems to me a fast path to pollution/corruption of the integrity of WP. if i'm missing something obvious, please set me straight. Anastrophe 23:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I personally find it a bit bizarre, as I've never used EB for anything at all, and dont consider it a common resource. but should it exist, the wikipedia corrected by EB page should probably be merged with this page. Bwithh 03:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You may find it bizarre, but I assure you there are millions of people in the world who do not. I'm unclear what the basis is for the merge. They are two articles at cross-purposes. Anastrophe 03:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I mean the idea of having such a page is a bit strange for me. Anyway, the page you are creating a counterpoint to is not an encyclopedia page but is a community page. your page should at least not be in the encyclopedia section but a community page as well. Bwithh 03:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am admittedly relatively new to wikipedia. how does one discern this difference between community and encyclopedia? i only see "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." on both this project page and mine. please advise. Anastrophe 03:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am relatively new myself. internal or community wikipedia pages - help guides, discussions, and rule pages etc. generally begin with the phrase "Wikipedia:" and are notated as WP: As I understand, there is a separate set of rules and conventions for WP pages than for regular encyclopedia pages. I'm not informed enough to advise you how to start a WP page. hopefully, someone more experienced can tell us both more. Bwithh 03:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Britannica vs. French Wikipedia

Britannica says:

Charles Philipon

born April 19, 1806, Lyon, France

died Jan. 25, 1862, Paris

French Wikipedia says:

born April 19, 1800

died 1861 January 25, 1862

English Wikipedia says:

born April 19, 1800

died 1861 January 25, 1861

Can somebody check which is correct ? bogdan | ^Talk 18:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ginseng?

A few years ago, the EB micropedia article on ginseng had the Chinese characters, and it had it as "heaven root" in Chinese whereas it was "man root" in translation. (The characters look similar: iirc the character for heaven is a man character with a line above it.) Anyone have a current EB to see if that's still there? dsws

Russian mistakes

Kostroma - Krylov - Karamzin - Dolgorukov (a note to myself) --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the Purpose of this page?

Just come across this today. I have previously noticed errors in EB too, but cataloguing them seems a pretty useless thing to do - unless we plan to actually bring them to the attention of EB's editors. If it's just for ego-fulfillment, why pick out just one encyclopedia to score points off? We could set ourselves up the standard against which ALL other encyclopedias in the world are judged, not just EB. But that would be silly, so why do this at all? This seems like a waste of time to me. Why not just get on with making Wikipedia the best we can make it, without worrying too much about the mistakes of others. A similar page called "Errors in Wikipedia" would be a very, very long list. Mistakes are being corrected all the time, but other wrong info is being added all the time too. That's the nature of the beast. It ill behoves us to be too superior about other reference works, particularly since we cite them endlessly when it suits us. JackofOz 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I largely agree with you here. However, to speak for myself, the errors I added are simply those I happened to come across while cross-checking the research I did for Wikipedia articles. I guess that holds for most of the contributions here. In other words, most people here are not wasting their time by actively searching for errors in EB; they're listing errors they stumble upon while improving Wikipedia. — mark ✎ 14:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Errors contained in reference books

I just discovered an entire site dedicated to this topic - Internet Accuracy Project Interesting stuff, though a little scary if you think about all the millions using EB and other encyclopedias as their only source of reference. brucethompson 21:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Size?

"The Encyclopædia Britannica article "Encyclopædia Britannica" indicates that the Encyclopædia Britannica is "the oldest and largest English-language general encyclopaedia". It is still the oldest. But it is now the second-largest to Wikipedia as measured by number of words and number of articles, among other standards."

Whether this statement is true or false depends on one's POV. As such, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to describe it as an error the same way that an incorrect birthdate is an error.

To properly write the paragraph neutrally, it should say something like "One statement that has been sometimes called an error is Britannica's statement that it is the largest encyclopedia. If Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia is accepted, then this statement is erroneous because Wikipedia contains more words and articles than Britannica. However, Britannica disputes Wikipedia's classification as an encyclopedia, referring to it as a "database" instead."

Even then, you would need to give a reliable source that calls Britannica's statement an error, other than Wikipedia itself. (And User:Hawkestone isn't a reference unless he has a greater claim to fame than just being a Wikipedia user.) Ken Arromdee 01:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just realized this isn't in the main article space, which means that articles can be as biased as we want. Still, there's nothing *prohibiting* neutral material here. If nobody objects, I'll probably change the main article's paragraph to something like the neutral paragraph above. Ken Arromdee 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, do it, it looks better. — mark ✎ 14:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Current events?

EB will never be as up-to-date as Wikipedia. People race to create an article on the latest current event here but EB may take days or more likely weeks (for the website). My question is should this be mentioned? It may seem a bit big headed. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 07:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with an error of the EB; it is by design. — mark ✎ 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Lafia

EB claims that Lafia is in the Plateau State of Nigeria ([3]). But it's the capital city of Nasarawa State. --Bohr 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct [4]. I added it. Regards, High on a tree 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A New International Encyclopedia errors page exists, too

It appears that the experts who contributed to the writing of encyclopedias were not perfect individuals; i. e., they made errors, and their errors were printed. GhostofSuperslum 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

bad prose

The awful writing on this page doesn't do wikipedia much credit - take the unintelligible text about the safety razor.

EB oldest Encyclopedia?

It may be that EB is the oldest still living encyclopedia; e.g. other encyclopedias were written before it, but none of those are still being published today? --JustinLong

Literary note

It is amusing to note that the main character of the book Parade's End by Ford Maddox Ford, Christopher Tietjens, as a hobby proudly identified errors in the Enc. Britannica.

Logarithmic spiral

Moved from main page:

$\phi ={\frac {1+{\sqrt {5}}}{2}}$. --  Denelson83  14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are quoting the formula for the golden ratio, i.e. you understand φ as a constant. However, in the formula given by the original poster:

exp(θ cot φ)

the φ is to be understood as a parameter, not a constant - namely, the angle between the tangent to the spiral and the radial line at the given point of the spiral. See Logarithmic spiral.

Regards, High on a tree 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of wasting time looking for errors in Britannica, you should use the time to improve Wikipedia. Besides - think how many errors can be found in here - hundreds of thousands! Wikipedia is a wide source of knowledge, but also the most unreliable one! So better start improving it. Minder 07:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not sign your additions to the article!

People, you have been signing your additions to the article. You are not supposed to do that. Signatures are for talk pages. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk_pages#When signatures should and should not be used we see that signatures should be used on "user talk pages, article talk pages, or other discussion pages" but not on "articles", and it says "articles" in general (as opposed of specifically main namespace articles). And I do believe that the signatures make this article look unprofessional. And remember that even if it is not in the main namespace, it gets linked from other sites (it was featured on Slashdot for example) -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This article referenced in a calendar!?

The 6 May 2009 entry of Page-A-Day's Wacky Web Sites calendar lists this article and notes after providing a general overview of the article, "Wikipedia is no stranger to inaccuracies, and given the trivial nature of many of the corrections-Roger Waters's correct birth date, whether frank Zappa was christended Frank or Francis-it has a long way to go to unseat Britannica as the most comprehensive and reliable source." Interesting, no? The multi-setence paragraph on the entry is headed "Battle of the Books" (funny, because we aren't a book...) and makes it as if Wikipedia and Britannica are rivals with Britannica looking dismissively at us. Might actually be worth noting somewhere that this article has actually attracted real world interest. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I just came across this page and it seems rather pointy. Does anybody else agree? Themfromspace (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe more people would if you explained your point more clearly: How is this page disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, in your opinion?

(You might also want to read the example under Wikipedia:WOTTA#Avoid_unnecessary_jargon.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly got a message to say about the Wikipedia vs. Britannica battle that the newspapers have picked up on. Wikipedia shouldn't overly promote itself with pages like this in the Wikipedia namespace. Themfromspace (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In which namespace should wikipedia discuss the topic then? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A comment

I know that this is completly off topic, but this page makes me happy. *Feels warm and fuzzy inside* --ThePastaKing (Talk) 20:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-encyclopediac language in section Nanking - History

This sentence seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia: "By the way, I am using Pinyin, while Britannica still uses Wade–Giles. Here is the transliteration of the Wade–Giles in this Britannica article to Pinyin:". The use of the word 'I' doesn't seem right here. I'm not sure how to change it, as I'm worried that the fact that I don't speak or read Chinese will cause me to make some crucial mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.27.85 (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have this page?

Apparently, there's some truth to this. At least there's 9 volumes of useful stuff.

Come on, guys, really? This is just whining, and we are not going to get anywhere with this. This is not very NPOV at all! (Yes, I know that NPOV is for mainspace only, but we still need to at least use it as a guideline in all namespaces.) Stop with the hoopla, please. We should respect EB, not saying the sophisticated equivalent of EB SUXORZ!!!! WIKIPEEDIA RULEZ!111!!1!!! (Because that is what this article seems to be saying, albeit under the cover of civility.) Agent 78787 ^{talk contribs} 01:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That or it's a comprehensive page to point at when people say "Wikipedia is a useless source compared to EB." I know people who assume that anything in EB is just short of the word of God, and/or assume that Wikipedia is nothing but vandalism, trolling, and spamming. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't talk items be on the talk page?

The article is riddled with postings that should be on the talk page, not in the article. Since I don't absolutely know that this isn't kosher by Wikipedia norms, and since I don't know what the acceptable approach to fixing it is, I'm not going to try to fix it myself. However, I do urge that someone who does know about such protocols please take some time on this.

Poihths (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

hey

@Teishin: Why were my edits reverted? --65.94.97.241 (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)—SOCK comments stricken

See [5] Teishin (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Teishin: I was not blanking the page though. What was the actual problem with my edits? --65.94.97.241 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Teishin: Like, I was not even intending to delete it or anything. Just add a couple of constructive things. What was the problem? --65.94.97.241 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)—SOCK comments stricken

1. The addition of { {historical} }. 2. Recent massive problem with sockpuppets on this article. 3. IP address with no edit history making technically sophisticated edits about obscure matters. Sure looks like a sockpuppet. WP:QUACK. Teishin (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Teishin: The historical tag is from 2019. But ok. Can my other edits stay then?2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)—SOCK comments stricken

Lovely, another IP address now. That tag wasn't there an hour ago. That tag is your edit. Teishin (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Teishin: sorry. Switched to my phone... Am actually on my way.... The historical tag was a consensus from more than a year ago... See Here also, can my other edits stay then? 2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)—SOCK comments stricken

There's no record of such a consensus anywhere above on this page. Teishin (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Teishin: it's not my edit. I simply restored what was for a long time.... But ok, can my other edits stay? 2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)—SOCK comments stricken

That was once put on the page without any discussion. The claim that there was consensus is false. HaeB restored the page ages ago. It's your edit now. Teishin (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Teishin: I could have been wrong. Now, can my other edits (other than the archived thing) stay?2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Teishin: I will just edit the thing again without the archive. You tell me if there is a problem ok?2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)—SOCK comments stricken