
Please change your username. It will be confusing to others if you use WIKIPEDIA as a username. See Wikipedia:Changing username. User:Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) *No. User:WIKIPEDIA 23:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) **If you refuse, the community may force you to change. I urge you to reconsider. User:Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) **I can't speak for others, but if there will be a vote on whether or not to ban you based on your username, I will vote in favour. — User:Timwi 23:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) **As will I. User:Raul654 23:55, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) **Please, change! Let's make this easy on everyone involved! Me, you, my little sister Tille, your grandma Rose, the whole Wikipedia community. :) - User:Fennec 23:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) **Me, three. User:Jengod 23:58, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) ***No, you four. :) - User:Fennec 00:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) **5 User:Bcorr|User talk:Bcorr 00:03, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) **I think this is exactly the kind of attention that WIKIPEDIA wants. --User:Alex S 00:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Hephaestos banned this account, rightly, for trolling. Case closed. -- User:Finlay McWalter | User talk:Finlay McWalter 00:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#REDIRECT Wikipedia
#REDIRECT Wikipedia
Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 1 Topics: FAQ, International Wikipedias, Wikipedia on CDROM, Wikipedia should be in the article namespace (discussion in March 2002), Script for automatically linking dates, Searching problem, Pornographic images...
Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 2 Topics: Why have articles about movies and tv shows?, Can we describe Wikipedia with a neutral point of view?, Why new software?, Stallman, Unnecessary and harmful deletions? (August 2003), Hardware, Major figures in history of encyclopedias not included.
Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 3 Topics: Will you include "Photography" , perhaps in Arts and Culture?, Internet-Encyclopedia, Comparison graph, Is Wikipedia really a "free content" encyclopedia?, VfD header, new subject, Which Razi?, Excited about Wikipedia but will it last?, hi really nice website^^, First paragraph
Talk:Wikipedia/Heirarchical Linking System proposal (made in March 2004)
Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 4 ---- You seriously need to update this to talk about how wikipedia actually works. things like administrators, deletions, etc. :You can find that info over at Wikipedia:Community Portal (linked from the first paragraph of the main page). User:Dori | User talk:Dori 23:45, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) :The first paragraph no longer contains any obvious link to the Community Portal. Would it be appropriate to add a "Wikipedia Governance" section that briefly describes various roles (i.e. volunteer developers, stewards, bureaucrats, administrators, sysops, Jimbo), and also has a link to the Community Portal? :Also, it would be nice if this main article better described the architecture of Wikipedia, such as the different groups or "namespaces" of content like articles and community pages. At a minimum, it should explain the difference between this article and the Wikipedia:introduction, because the distinction between the two makes no obvious sense to people who are not familiar with both. I suspect that the people who have done most of the editing of this article are so familiar with Wikipedia that it is difficult for them to look at it from a new person's point of view. User:JonathanFreed 20:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC) Response: This is an encyclopedia. It contain the history and legacy of Wikipedia, which is enough for a article on itself. Everything you want is on other pages. ---- ==Self-Reference== :''If you wish to become a Wikipedia contributor, please take a look at the Wikipedia:Introduction''. Isn't this a Wikipedia:Avoid self-references? User:Chocolateboy 19:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) :No. Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Introduction are two different articles. --User:Spug 00:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) That's not what I meant (the internal link to the Wikipedia namespace has since been moved to the Wikipedia#External links section) by self-ref. See Talk:Wikipedia#Links outside the main namespace and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references :-) User:Chocolateboy 12:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Main page image and statistics == Perhaps the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_mainpage_of.PNG screenshot of the main page] should be updated to reflect the (slightly changed) new layout? --User:Spug 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Currently the page sais 'Wikipedia contains approximately 1.3 million articles, over 480,000 of which are in its English language edition'. This will get out of date relatively fast, unless these numbers get frequently updated. Can't we insert automatically the number of articlas, like on the front page? -- Adhemar : Idem for the Language editions table -- Adhemar : Using : [ [Special:Statistics|] ] : (giving Special:Statistics) for the number of English articles, and something similar for the entire amount of articles, perhaps? -- Adhemar ==Odd quote== :"Fortunately, most of us are willing to take a definite stand against vandalism ... and to get rid of it instantly." Am I the only one who thinks the above quote (by Larry Sanger) doesn't say much? I mean, is there anyone who would take a stand ''for'' vandalism (except the vandals), or anyone who would rather wait a few days before getting rid of it? User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 11:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Indeed. That is an odd quote.== A good odd quote indeed. [http://www.just-wiki-it.com/ Just wiki it.] == External links == An anonymous user has changed "External links" to "Internal links" a couple of times. That creates problems for mirrors and dead-tree versions of course, especially since this article makes an excellent description of Wikipedia which can be used by librarians, newsletters, etc. However the anon has a point, most of the links do link back to Wikipedia, so "External links" doesn't seem right either. What about changing it to the alternate "Related links"? I think we can make an exception to the standard here. User:Rhobite 04:42, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) :For internal links, our normal standard would be "See also". Is there a reason that wouldn't work here? User:JamesMLane 05:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, it's a problem of context. This article is written as an article about Wikipedia, and it should be readable independently from the actual website. Wikilinks are nice hypertext features but they won't be available in standalone copies of articles, some mirrors, and paper versions. Since the article's subject is Wikipedia, it makes sense to link to relevant pages on Wikipedia (including Wikipedia: space articles which would otherwise break the self-reference policy). These links work best as external links. It can be a little confusing, but keeping these links as external links enforces the "fourth wall" we have between encyclopedia and Wikipedia. User:Rhobite 06:09, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) :Wikipedia:Village pump#External links must die. "Further reading" is more accurate, and not self-referential. User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 10:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Wikipedia addiction not mentioned == It is not necessarily a bad thing, but one can get addicted to wikipedia, or some sort of over-navegation, even leaving the rest of the internet unattended, or even my girl or curricular study. For sure its a weak time in my life and maybe wikipedia time is some best part of it. Not a dead end addiction for me. I do find a great ease when flipped to a world of ilustrated things. I am sure there is some knowledge out there about examples of syndorome-sort of extreem atachment and use of this great bit of informatic communication and people. If it is of some importance of it maybe there should be some mention of it. Best regards, Pablo (from Spain) ==Wikipedia is the main introduction page to Wikipedia== Currently, new users' introduction to what Wikipedia is is limited to 2 lines of description on the main page, and if they want more information they click on the Wikipedia link. The policy on this page should take into account that this page is thus not just an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, but is the main introduction & public relations page. I'm not sure why it was removed that many news sources have featured positive profiles of Wikipedia. --User:Nectarflowed 13:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I removed the "Wikipedia has received plaudits from" line that duplicated in the introduction and awards from the intro. If there's a better way I don't mind of course, but I don't think the justification can be that this is our "public relations page", which would violate NPOV. User:119 19:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::119- Thanks for pointing that out. By 'public relations' I mean an interface that presents introductory information to the public. In this sense, I think it's important to the introductory understanding of Wikipedia that this page provides to note the reviews Wikipedia gets from prominent news sources, as well as the IBM study. However, I agree with what you point out, that "plaudits" would be a questionable phrasing in terms of NPOV.User:Nectarflowed 20:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) : Hmm. I don't think we should alter our normal encyclopedic approach just because the article happens to be linked to from the Main Page. That's really the wrong approach: our policies should be the same as everwhere else in the main article space. If we have a great need to treat this page differently, then we should not use ''this'' page for that purpose, but direct the user to a different page from the Main Page. User:Matt Crypto 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::If a different page is required (though I disagree), it should probably be Wikipedia:About. User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 01:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::What about Wikipedia:Wikipedia? - User:Ta bu shi da yu 01:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Suggestion for image to add== Screenshot of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia, as an example of how a Wikipedia article might look ;-) - User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 19:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Wouldn't that be a little like looking at a mirror through a mirror? :) — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 20:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Remember that Wikipedia content gets "syndicated". The article on Wikipedia may be read on some other site or even in another medium entirely. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 04:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==h3== Stevietheman has changed the categories in External links from ; to h3 with no edit summary. Why? I think there is no improvement in functionality or presentation to have a h3 above every two or three links. It is completely out of proportion and clutters the table of contents. User:119 :Because that's the normal way it's done. And it's look just fine to me. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 01:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- "restore Lisbon, as it's an important example regarding the need to cite sources" - SlimVirgin :Wikipedia is not for editors, it is for the wider public. Do you have another reason to keep it? User:119 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Power Failure == Is it just me, or is there no mention of Monday's power failure anywhere on this page or any page? Am I missing something? :If we mentioned every time something went wrong with the site, the article would be a mile long. If you're looking for information instead of just wanting it in this article, see m:February 2005 server crash. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 04:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Extremely impressed by the references == I have to say that am extremely impressed that this article is referenced, and the method of doing so. I'll have to figure out how its done, but it looks very professional and something I believe that should be done for all Wikipedia Articles. Increasingly websites with articles like [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cycloid.html cycloid] also have references. I think it is increasingly becoming so that any piece of information, from what ever source, needs to be referenced as the public becomes more skepticle of the information it consumes. - anon :A Wikiproject called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check Fact and Reference Check] exists to help reference all the facts within Wikipedia. If anyone is interested please come and take a look :). --User:ShaunMacPherson 23:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) :It took us ages to get this done... all our current articles that people would like to be featured must be referenced in such a way! - User:Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Strange, I just reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=10681424 this diff] in which an anon changed 2003 to 2009, and the original is not on history. User:119 21:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- ==Correction times in the vandalism section== The mix of days and minutes in the "vandalism" section looked bizarre to me. I suspected vandalism and spent ten minutes trying to find the first version of these numbers without success. Could someone who understands them please check that they are correct, and if they are, please explain what more of the terms mean and why the differences of magnitude are so vast? User:Pcpcpc 01:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I haven't seen that section modified yet; it was written by me and its source cited as "Viegas, Wattenberg, and Dave (2004)" which is available under References for checking. The discrepancy in days/minutes is due to the differences between mean and median. User:119 02:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::No it isn't. It is obviously wildly wrong and the reference doesn't help. How did it get featured article with this in it? I am going to delete it in the hope it will prompt a correction. User:Gillian Tipson 13:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Page 579. Check it. This is infuriating: I clearly cite a source ''which contains the numbers verbatim'', and you delete it as "wildly wrong"?! User:119 15:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Revision - Type - Number - Mean time - Median time
All content - 618,502 - 22.3 days - 90.4 minutes
Mass delete - (MD) - 3,574 - 7.7 days - 2.8 minutes
MD obscene - 47 - 1.8 days - 1.7 minutes
Again, that is page 579 of Fernanda B. Viegas, Martin Wattenberg, and Kushal Dave, "[http://web.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with ''history flow'' Visualizations]", CHI 2004 April 24-29 2004. It has been available for fact checking as long as this information was up. User:119 15:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :Look at the mass delete figures. 7.7 days is 3,960 times greater than 2.8 minutes. What on earth is one supposed to make of that? Are we to believe that half of the events were corrected in 2.8 minutes or less, but the other half typically took more than a fortnight? Do you find that sufficiently probable that no comment is needed? These numbers are not useful without a thorough explanation, which you have made no attempt to provide. They simultaneously say that Wikipedia is correctly really quickly and that it is corrected really slowly. The former fits the context and the latter does not. Perhaps you have a high level understanding of statistics and can explain it all (though you are yet to demonstrate any evidence of this), but this is the general article about Wikipedia, and it should be clearer than it is. 03:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :I see now that you are criticising the reference itself and not the summary of it. It has been accurately presented, yes? Neutral point of view is to do just that, and it is certainly ''not'' in accordance with the policy to delete material you personally find dubious. Making your own argument against it would fall under no original research. It's there, and it's an accurate, neutral summary of their article--let the reader decide. User:119 04:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::I think this paragraph should probably be explained a bit better. The mean vs. median difference means that most of these "mass delete" changes are reverted quickly, but a few instances remain for a very long time. I'm not calling them vandalism because I'm not convinced that the "mass delete" category is sound. If someone posts 500KB of nonsense to a small page which I then revert, I believe my revert would get included as a "mass delete". Maybe I read the article wrong. User:Rhobite 04:20, May 12, 2005 (UTC) ::I should add that those mean and median statistics are easily achievable. For the "mass delete obscene" category, n = 47. Half of the articles in that data set are reverted in under 1.7 minutes, but all it takes is one outlier, which has stayed vandalized for a couple months, to bring the mean revert time up to 1.8 days. Unfortunately we don't have any more information about their sample data but I'm willing to bet that even their 80th-90th percentile is still in the minutes range. Statistically this is not as impossible as you're making it sound Gillian. Still, I think the paragraph should be rephrased. User:Rhobite 04:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC) :::Agree, and I think we should keep in mind that many readers have very little experience with statistics, so such counter-intuitive results may require some explanation.--User:Nectarflowed User_talk:Nectarflowed 05:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I take it then that there are three people in favor of including this, and one against? It is still out as I write. User:119 15:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Yes, I think it should be included but rephrased. User:Rhobite 15:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC) ==more criticism== NOTE: As I have withdraw my adition I include it here so that the rest of the users can make informed suggestions--User:LexCorp 08:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :It has also been noted that wikipedia can easily serve as a propaganda dissemination tool for well organised and determined groups who want to push a politically or ideologically motivated agenda. The tactics that these groups employ is to slowly erode the content of opposed articles by invoking the NPOV policy so that little by little they are able to modify the article being attacked. This generally results in the generation of enough doubt about the correctness of the topic of the article in the mind of visiting users so that they follow the provided alternative POV links supplied. These links normally point to a web of wikipedia articles consisting of large numbers of subtle neologism with lot of external links to material supporting their content. These webs of articles are no more than a repository of the group propaganda, which normally provide the information the group wants to disseminate in a POV fashion. The articles that belong to these webs are fanatically defended from alteration by members of the group employing the tactic. The group manages to successfully defend the articles POV due to the fact that the articles are neologisms which are supported by vast information resources from outside wikipedia and by invoking the NPOV policy to argue that any modification is ofensive to them and thus POV. Of course these external resources are controlled by the group and are neither NPOV nor the view of the majority of people. An excellent example of such groups is the Creationist (particularly but not exclusively the Young Earth Creationist) and their persistent attacks on articles describing science, science methodology and philosophy, evolution, geology and any other subject that contradicts their view. Creation science, flood geology, creation bilology and creation anthropology are some of the neologism they use. Wikipedia answer to this criticism is that, even when confronted by such organised groups, the underlying assumption that contributing user are able to maintain the NPOV of the content of wikipedia in the long run is still valid. Critics argue that such views can not be held rationally and that many good contributors of wikipedia leave the project frustrated that the policies of wikipedia or the way they are implemented do not help at all when faced with such tactics as the one described above. So because I learned something through me being involved in a dispute.Then I can't point out a valid criticism of wikipedia in the section criticism in the wikipedia article. That is also a very strange NPOV policy concept you got there. --User:LexCorp 07:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) If you think the way it is worded or phrased is POV then try to make ammends and not just delete it into oblivion.--User:LexCorp 07:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Your addition is both POV and original research; I do not think it should be in the article. User:Matt Crypto 07:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::I guess the point of criticism is to be POV in order to balance articles and sections of articles with other POV in them. Thus wikipedia policy allows for the inclusion of various POV to make an article NPOV. So it will be strange indeed if the criticism was not skew toward a POV. Mainly because that is what criticisms are a POV stament related to another statement. As for original research. I have my doubts as it is an opinion that at least another user shares with me. and I am quite sure there must be thousands who feel the same. ::What I don't understand is why aren't people, instead of reverting the part I included, trying to iron it out so that the criticism comes across the article but any misgivings as to its POV disappear. My inability to convey a criticism should not be a barrier. I am finding, more and more, that instead of this being the apparent warm receiving community of users/helpers is becaming a segregated stronghold of articles in which any serious edition suggestion is answer with a rudeness which frankly puts off anyone from contributing.--User:LexCorp 07:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::I don't see any part of your addition that can be saved. You're taking a current dispute, which you're involved in yourself, and casting it as a flaw of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This is your opinion, it doesn't belong in this article. We have to be especially careful when editing this article, because most of us are very attached to the topic. We have to be careful about praising Wikipedia, but we also have to be careful about letting current edit wars spill across the "wall" into this article. As Matt Crypto said, your addition is original research. It's an essay about a perceived failing of the NPOV policy. You're not the first person to make these claims, but they are already presented in Criticism of Wikipedia. User:Rhobite 07:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::So if I am not the first person to make this claims I guess it is not original research after all. I do understand your point about sensibility with the wikipedia. It is because I also love wikipedia and what it represent(free information unbias) that I point out a glaring flaw that percludes that objetive from been real. I have read the Criticism of Wikipedia and I am not happy as to how it describes the phenomenon I am trying to convey as it asumes that there is no organisation between those persistem users. Will it be ok to move my addition to that article stating that some users feel that what I describe is ocurring or at least they feel it is ocurring.--User:LexCorp 08:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::No, it is still original research. There is no method of attributing your claims, unless we should try to smoothly transition from citations of Britannica editors and academic studies to "LexCorp says..." Together with this is of course ''noteworthiness''. See Wikipedia:No original research. User:119 08:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::so how did this get into the article Criticism of Wikipedia, ::::::''Flame wars'' ::::::''Some people who are familiar with interactions between individuals on Wikipedia and UseNet predict that'' ::::::''”Wikipedia is going to end up like Usenet — just a bunch of flame wars.”'' ::::::''Response: This is a bit more of a problem, but it is dealt with fairly handily by the social mores of Wikipedia, aka Wikiquette.'' ::::::''Usenet lacks at least two features that are absolutely essential to Wikipedia's success: (1) on Usenet, you can't edit other people's work, while we can here on Wikipedia, thereby encouraging creative and collegial collaboration; or more strongly, on Wikipedia, there's no such thing as "other people's work", because there's no ownership of information; (2) Unlike Wikipedia, Usenet does not have the possibility of enforcing community-agreed standards. Moreover, Usenet is a debate forum. Wikipedia is, very self-consciously, an encyclopedia project! This provides at least some agreement on What Wikipedia is not.'' ::::::''Disputes become tedious battles of persistence'' ::::::''Several contributors have complained that editing Wikipedia is very tedious in case of conflicts and that fanatic contributors with idionsyncractic, non-mainstream, non-scientific belief systems can push their point of view because nobody has the time and energy to fight them. Partly in response to his battles with followers of Lyndon LaRouche, one prolific, high profile contributor, Adam Carr Ph.D. (http://www.adam-carr.net/), stated in October 2004 that he would scale down his contributions to Wikipedia considerably (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam_Carr) because of, what he considers, the too open nature of Wikipedia.'' ::::::Is it not by your criteria also original research? ::::::Could I not include, ::::::''Several contributors have noted that wikipedia can easily serve as a propaganda dissemination tool for well organised.... '' ::::::or ::::::''Some people who are familiar with Wikipedia have noted that wikipedia can easily serve as a propaganda dissemination tool for well organised....'' ::::::I just don't understand your criteria for original research. --User:LexCorp 08:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::Clearly there's a difference between a short description of a common problem, and a long-winded rant against creationists. Do you really think it's neutral to say that the views of creationists are "propaganda"? That they are "attacking" Wikipedia? Should an article about Wikipedia say that creationist views "cannot be held rationally"? User:Rhobite 16:14, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::That it is a rant about creationist is your POV. Mine is that it is a legit criticism about wikipedia. So it is your believe that describing things for what they are is POV but confusing issues by neologism is more NPOV?. To say that something is rational or irational only describes that the former is argumented logically while the later is not. How can a description like that be POV? are any logic argument inerently POV? ::::::::Again if you think it is too long and a rant. Why not make suggestiong to condansete it and improve it?--User:LexCorp 16:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::This is pointless, we're going around in circles. As I said before, I don't see any portion of your essay which can be saved or condensed into something usable. User:Rhobite 18:27, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::And what should I read from that?. That your opinion is sacrosant and mine worthless. I believe I am argumenting my points effectively and that you are not giving my neither convincing arguments to the contrary nor a satisfactory suggestion of how to include the criticism into the article Criticism of Wikipedia.--User:LexCorp 18:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::Three people have patiently explained to you why your essay is unsalvageable. You choose to ignore our explanations - so be it. I've pointed out specific examples of phrases which should never be in a Wikipedia article unattributed. I really can't explain this any more. I'm sorry, but I have to fall back on consensus here. Three people disagree with you, and nobody has spoken in favor of your essay. User:Rhobite 20:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::: There is a large population in favour of what LexCorp is suggesting, the difference is that as rational people, we gave up on trying to stablish a more reputable means of conveing facts and information in a completley unregulated medium (in our POV) like wikipedia. Most of us do publish in peer reviewed publications in the scientifict community and would rather feel we are doing something for humankind other than wasting our time with wikipedia unless it changes. Time will tell. We may be silent, but we keep an eye. User:Askewmind | (User_talk:Askewmind) 22:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==WTD's edits== I'm a bit puzzled as to why User:WTD's edits were reverted. he made the sensible point that, in fact, of course it's not possible to access the whole of human knowledge, and he referred the reader to the page history to see how open-access wordks. These were reverted by User:Rhobite without explanation, so far as I can see. Am I missing something? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 14:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Ah, I've just found comments on WTD's Talk page (he seems to think that Rhobite and I are the same person, though I'm not sure why), together with some explanation of the reverts. To be honest, though, I'm still not entirely clear what the problem is with either edit; I wonder if it could be discussed here. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 14:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::WTD added this: "The 'sum' - or totality - of human knowledge is, of course, inaccessible; 'twould, perhaps, be arrogant to think otherwise. However..." First off it's inappropriate to speculate about arrogance. That part is definitely POV. In another edit WTD added "see the history of this page" - clearly self-referential. For WTD's other point, I'm not sure if we should point out that the sum of human knowledge is inaccessible. I'm not the only person who reverted WTD. As others said in their edit summaries, this is obvious. As I mentioned on WTD's talk page, Jimbo's quote is somewhat rhetorical - I don't interpret it completely literally, and I don't think it's intended to be interpreted literally. Much like groups who are trying to "end world hunger" or politicians who want to put "a chicken in every pot", Wikipedia is never going to reach its goal. I think that's understood. If someone has criticized Wikipedia for its apparently impossible mission statement, we should cite that. If WTD's addition is merely his/her own opinion, we should not add it to the lead section. Hope this clarifies things. User:Rhobite 19:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC) :::Well, I'm not sure about the business about the sum of all knowledge (it might be unnecessary for most people, but putting it in wouldn't do any harm at least, and might make Wikipedia look less pie-in-the-sky for some literal-minded readers). The bit that I don't understand, though, is self-reference. I mean, an article on Wikipedia is already pretty damned self-referential; moreover, referring to the edit history isn't referring to the page — and if one's explaining how it all works, then referring to the page is surely an obvious way of doing it? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 19:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::Please read my comments from #External_links above - they apply here as well. Basically, this should not be treated as an article within Wikipedia; it should be treated as an article ''about'' Wikipedia. As a rule of thumb, any references which would not make sense in a paper version of this article are not acceptable. User:Rhobite 20:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC) Thanks. I'll not pretend to be completely convinced, but my concerns aren't important enough to distract us from getting on with more useful matters. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 22:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) The above raises a few interesting wee points. I had formed the impression that Wiki was truly open and editable; then I formed the impression that my contributions were being edited unreasonably; then, without realising what 'reverts' might mean, I formed the impression I'd upset a few 'fans'; then I formed the impression that 'openly editable' was, on certain pages, a misnomer. Finally, I formed the impression - wholly erroneously, perhaps - that my edits were, in effect, being censored. I say "formed the impression"; I'm ''not'' saying these impressions were accurate; and whilst I say "censored" I am not suggesting this is what was really happening; just what it felt like at the time, to me, as new here. However, I do differentiate "'twould, perhaps, be arrogant" from "It is arrrogant"; the former is not, to me anyway, POV. Also, I cannot see how ref to a ''page history'' is self-ref - I was inviting others to read the stuff. WTD 02:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) :The problem isn't that the points you have tried to make are seen as "wrong," but that ''Wikipedia editors don't make personal assertions''. I think including "twould, perhaps, be arrogant to think otherwise" would be contrary to both the "WP:NPOV" and "Wikipedia:No original research" policies. If you find noteable remarks on Wales' definition which can be attributed to their author, then that's another matter. User:119 ==Suggestions for Improvements To Wikipedia== Are there any plans to create/use a distributed approach to Wikipedia? Somthing similar to the method used by Bittorrent where users share space and bandwidth. :what User:Silsor 22:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC) :Would you like to have BitTorrent response times as well? User:Midom 22:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC) ::However, it ''might'' be useful to use BitTorrent as a way of distributing the database dumps... -- User:Karada 23:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) :No, as it's essentially impossible to do while maintaining editability. Such systems work wonders for static content. Dynamic stuff? Not so much. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 04:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) == List of language editions == Is there any reason not to include the list of language editions? This article is about an encyclopedia, and it seems very natural to include the list of major editions with the number of article in each one. Since I can't find a justification not to do so, I am going to restore this again. -- User:TakuyaMurata 22:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) :That list is badly out of date and cannot be up to date. As you said when removing a functionally identical 'currently', "this is not a newspaper article." User:119 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Lucky for us, we are now able to update the counts, as http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm is up again. While we agree that this article is not meant to be on the press, I think, as said above, it is natural to note the number of articles for each edition. -- User:TakuyaMurata 19:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ==Vandalism to the main Wikipedia pages== I usually enter Wikipedia via the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia page. What annoys me to no end is the constant problem with vandalism to the Wikipedia page. For example, quite often I have found the page almost completely deleted of content! At other times, the Wikipedia page is subject to continuing edit wars. To solve these problems I submit that the Wikipedia administrators should permanently lock the Wikipedia page. This will ensure a reliable informative guide to Wikipedia. With the present system, one can't be sure what you may find on the Wikipedia page. Leave all the other pages for open edits, but please lock the main Wikipedia user guide page. Bivariate-Correlator 1 April 2005 : This page isn't intended as a user guide; it's an encyclopedia article that happens to be on the topic of Wikipedia. User:Matt Crypto 22:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Weird criticism, lacking source== :''Wikipedia articles contain extensive cross-referencing to other articles through links. As a result, it has been criticised for being a "Google bomb" which disrupts search engine results.'' Criticized by whom? User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 20:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) :That's been in for some time. I've looked for references but haven't seen anything. User:119 20:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Well the main place I've seen it discussed like this is on Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia:send in the clones but it seems to me that that may not be the best reference. Google did have to do some work to fix the problem. User:Mozzerati 21:09, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC) ==Wikipedia Merchandise== Is the Wikipedia Merchandise link, http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia, proper to include in Wikipedia? User:119 07:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) : I guess it is like licensed merchandising... in a way? -- user:zanimum ==Uncyclopedia== Worthy of note in our external links? [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page] -- user:zanimum :How about an internal link to Uncyclopedia? -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 14:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Origin of the idea== The article says, :Wales and Sanger attribute the concept of using a wiki to Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb or Portland Pattern Repository, the original wiki, though disagree regarding credit. Sanger attributes the idea to Ben Kovitz, a regular at this wiki, in January 2001.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_SangerKovitz) Wales credits Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee of Bomis who showed him the same wiki, in December 2000.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_WalesRosenfeld) Not correct. See the [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-April Sanger's memoirs] thread on Wikipedia-L and revise accordingly. :From "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia" by Sanger, and Wales' reply on the thread "Sanger's memoirs" on Wikipedia-l: ::Sanger: "I had dinner with an old Internet friend of mine, Ben Kovitz... Ben explained the idea of Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb to me." ::Wales:"In mid-December, Jeremy showed me Ward Cunningham's wiki..." :How do you think it is incorrect? User:119 21:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Wikipedia is why the 'net exists! == Surely the reason that the 'net exists is so that sites like this can exist. The ideal of the sharing of knowledge for the mutual benefit of humanity in general is the ideal of the internet itself. The world wide web exists so that knowledge can be compiled in one place, so that all human knowledge can be stored for all time and made avalible for all people. This website - whatever its failings - should be praised.(discus) Adam-Casey-Philosopher :What on earth would lead you to believe that there is a reason the net exists? :User:Stevenzenith 02:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC) == We seem to be missing the article == Or am I going blind? User:Shoecream —User:Shoecream 04:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC) :It was deleted by Rdsmith4 for some unexplained reason and was subsequently restored by someone else. -- 04:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC) ::It was deleted due to page move vandalism. That someone else was probably able to move it back faster than Rdsmith. -User:Frazzydee|User talk:Frazzydee 19:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC) == Fundraising == Should we have information on how Wikipedia regularly does fundraising drives, and also the Cafe Press merchandise? - User:Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC) :The article should definitely tell how wikipedia is financed, but merchandising is superfluous IMO. --User:Elian 00:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::I think we should have it. Incidentally, if it's well-priced, I might buy some. User:harry491 User_talk:harry491 00:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC) == Oh no! == Someone has deleted everything in this article and replaced it with: "Wikipedia: The Website you are looking at." I'm from h2g2, and I shudder to think how bad this would make us look if it was one of our people playing this HHGG-style joke on y'all. Get it back if you can! I was actually looking for info on an article I was writing about user-written sites like this. :Wikipedia:Clear your cache - that vandalism was fixed already User:Ahoerstemeier 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC) I decided to add "In other words, it's what you're looking at now, if you didn't already know that", to the current page, but any similarities are purely coincedental. User:SabinFigaro 22:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)SabinFigaro ==IBM & MIT study reference== *"In a study of the page histories of Wikipedia's English-language edition, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and IBM researchers Viegas, Wattenberg, and Dave found the mean time to correct "mass delete" and "mass delete obscene" vandalism to be 7.7 days and 1.8 days, and the median times 2.8 minutes and 1.7 minutes respectively. In contrast, the average persistency of a revision marked "all content" was found to be 22.3 days, the median time 90.4 minutes." The footnote for this study links to the Meta article on Wikipedia, which doesn't mention the study.--User:Nectarflowed User_talk:Nectarflowed 19:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :The user Neutrality apparently broke it a few days ago and did not fix it, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=13500679 this revision] is still good. The link still goes to the correct footnote, the templates used will always do that, but the numbering is off now. User:119 20:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ==Italics== Should Wikipedia be italicized? While it has been changed to plain as though it were a careless mistake, the reasoning behind ''Wikipedia'' was that it is the title of an encyclopedia. User:119 20:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :I agree, the Manual of Style states that books and titles of longer works should be italicized. ''Wikipedia'' should be italicized, just as ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' is. --User:Poiuytman User talk:PoiuytmanUser:Poiuytman 00:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC) :No, it should not. Online works are never italicized. User:NeutralityUser talk:Neutrality 05:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC) ::Unless I'm missing something, the Manual of Style has no mentioning of whether the medium the media exists on (online or paper) has any bearing on whether it is italicized or not. It seems to focus more on the type of media and its breadth. Although the MoS does not specifically state that encyclopedias are italicized, they definitely qualify as "longer works", and probably fall in under "book". In my opinion, it ''shouldn't matter'' whether it's physical or electronic — Wikipedia:Cite sources treats all magazine articles, (e-)books, and encyclopedias the same, electronic or not. --User:Poiuytman User talk:PoiuytmanUser:Poiuytman 06:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC) :::When i refer to fiction of book-length published only in electronic editions (as i have done in several debates on SF works), i use italics, or an indication of them. Where is the rule that "Online works are never italicized." to be found, in the MoS or any style guide? Most online works are of a length that would not justify italics if printed, but some are long enough and ''Wikipedia'' surely is.User:DESiegel 16:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ''Wikipedia'' should be italicized just like the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', as per the MoS. User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 11:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC) *I think it should be bold-faced, blinking and surrounded by a bright red box :) Seriously though, italicized sounds appropriate. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 16:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC) *At the risk of complicating a wonderfully trivial discussion, we should perhaps distinguish ''Wikipedia'' the work from Wikipedia the organisation. I think it's the multiple meanings of the word which cause the confusion. User:Markalexander100User talk:Markalexander100 02:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) **An excellent point. Unfortunately, the line between the two may be rather vague, and I would not know where to start with differentiating them. --User:Poiuytman User talk:PoiuytmanUser:Poiuytman 11:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***I would use italic when refering to the articles signly or collectively, but not when refering to the administative structure, the people who run it, the legal entity, or the community of editors and others that has grown up. if in doubt, i wluld italicize. Note that this mostly refers to uses in articles themselves. On talk pages, people are often less formal and careful with their formatting anyway. User:DESiegel 16:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ****I oppose the use of italics in article titles. Italic fonts are less legible than non-italic fonts so they should be used sparingly. Italics can be useful as a contrast to highlight something in the middle of text. A title needs no contrast. User:Bobblewik User talk:Bobblewik 17:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) When referring to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, we should use the same style as for other encyclopaedias. When referring to Wikipedia as a website or an online community, we should use the same style as for other websites and online communities. Or, to put it another way, whether italics should be used or not depends on context, User:Jguk 08:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) == A nonte from an anon == wikipedia is a very awesome resource but the fact that people can change whatever they want in it whenever thery want (kind f like i've been doing for about the last 15 minutes) makes it a little less dependable. (unsigned comment posted by . * You may have noticed by now that your edits have been examined and removed. That anybody can add whatever they want, anybody else can fact check it. Those who chronically vandalize or intentionally add "bad" data will also quickly find themselves blocked from editing. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 15:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC) ==Innacuracy in wikipedia and paper Encyclopedias== There is a substancial problem in this issue in the article. Wikipedia can have innacuracy problems, but when the subject is foreign countries is more reliable than English language paper Encyclopedias. When I read Portuguese-related info on paper Encyclopedia in English it is FULL of innacuracies, at least in here there are several people that is from various countries and correct many innacuracies that are found in paper enc. ~just my 2 cents. -User:PedroPVZ 19:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC) == Health Warning Required == There really needs to be a clearer statement in this article and on the main page of the limitation of the Wikipedia. Not only is it open to the abuse of the well intentioned it is subject to subtle revision by special interest groups. Wikipedia potentially undermines the basis of public consensus building. It is being accepted as an authority when there is no basis for that acceptance. In short, without wishing to be alarmist (but being alarmed), I see Wikipedia as socially damaging and dangerous. A clearer and more prominent statement of the issue *on all pages* is required in my view. User:Stevenzenith 20:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC) :There has been much discussion about this in the past. There is a link to the general disclaimers on each page, so there is no need to have different disclaimers for each page otherwise. --User:Clawed 20:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC) ::The disclaimers are not sufficiently prominent. The public health warning I think appropriate would be prominantly displayed at the head of each page - in large bold and RED letters. ::User:Stevenzenith 02:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC) :This has been discussed before and rejected. This is also the absolute wrong place to discuss this, being as this page is for discussing ''only'' this article. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 06:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC) == Proposal:Add link to WP:NOT == We should add a link somewhere on this page to what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. I think it is important to show new users not only what WP is but what WP is not. :This page isn't meant to be an introduction to wikipedia for wikipedia users, this is an article about the entity wikipedia (a subtle distinction). It might well be read by someone not using wikipedia at all, who is instead using some services that uses content part of which originated on wikipedia. We're GFDL after all. (avoid self references) --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 06:21, 2005 May 30 (UTC) ::True, but such a reader might still fid it useful to know why soiem kinds of content are not included in Wikipedia. I think such a link would add to an understqnding of what Wikipedia is, which is the subject of this article. User:DESiegel 16:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree that it is still noteworthy to talk about what editors of wikipedia (i.e., us) think what should be included and what should not be. But making a link is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. -- User:TakuyaMurata 23:50, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) == Proposal to rename the self-article == I think the Wikipedia article should swap content between Wikipedia:Wikipedia and Wikipedia, and make the main title Wikipedia:Wikipedia since the article mainly focuses on Wikipedia. --User:SuperDude115 21:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It is an article about Wikipedia. It isn't a user guide. It isn't something specifically for this project (as the Wikipedia: namespace dictates), but an encyclopedia article on an encyclopedic topic. User:smoddy 21:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia. Why would we want to have a encyclopedia article about wikipedia in the wikipedia namespace, why not just stick the aricle on a talk page? --User:Clawed 21:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Object, this is an informative article, and articles don't belong in the Wikipedia: namespace (it's for guides, reference). --User:Poiuytman User talk:PoiuytmanUser:Poiuytman 00:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Object, for the reasons mentioned above. Perhaps you can add some flesh to Wikipedia:Wikipedia if it needs any. -- 04:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) * Object for reasons stated above. -- User:Arwel Parry 13:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Object. per above. User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 14:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Object. Articles should remain in the article namespace, project articles should be in the Wikipedia namespace. But I'm surprised that Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia — isn't there anything that's project-oriented that we have to say about ourselves? — User:Asbestos | User talk:Asbestos 14:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Object Article NS. …User:Guy M… (User talk:Guy M) 00:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) == Vandalism == FYI I looked at this article on the date below, only to find that the content had been somewhat altered. It was only one phrase and I think it went "A gay site by a bunch of queafing (?) transsexuals." The strange thing was that the history revealed nothing, only when I "edited" the article (went to 'edit this page' and clicked edit) did the normal page come up. Any ideas as to how the vandal managed to alter the page without it appearing on the history? (Taking a look at the history you'll notice that Mel Etitis (i think) recently reverted a vandalism, could it be the same vandal?) User:Dwilke 18:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) :Hi, Dan. Yes, it was reverted by Mel at 16:24, 6 minutes after the vandalism. This link won't last long (oh for MediaWiki 1.5!), but you can see his reversion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=0&oldid=14881894 here]. Cheers, User:smoddy 18:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=14881894 here], which is a permanent link (the trick is to go to the diff page, go to the previous edit, and then go to the next edit). --User:CesarB 18:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Criticism of Wikipedia merged and redirected== ''Crossposted at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia:'' I have merged the unique content of Criticism of Wikipedia into this article and turned Criticism of Wikipedia into a redirect. There was striking overlap, so the unique content didn't amount to much, see User:JRM's murderous plans at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, section "Warning: I intend to kill this page". Mostly such content consisted of fuller quotes from authorities already cited in Wikipedia, e. g., this well-known and telling quote from Robert McHenry: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." Anything like that has been tenderly merged into Wikipedia. The only things I've knowingly let fall by the wayside, as being too low-quality for a featured article, is unsourced grinching by Some People, for example "Some people predict that Wikipedia is going to end up as "just as a bunch of flame wars"" (some people seem to be quoting some other people here). If anybody's planning to revert my actions, please give some thought to the issue of references, because the Criticism page did have something that Wikipedia was in want of: an appropriate (if short) "References" section. Wikipedia had and has a very fine collection of references, but before my meddling, they were given only in a footnote section (confusingly titled "References".) Footnotes are not enough, the reader also needs an alphabetical list of the sources used. But won't such a list merely duplicate information already given in the footnotes? Yes. Well, isn't that a wanton waste of space? No, it's an essential reader convenience. The reader who wonders if Simon Waldman's Guardian article was used, or who wants the bibliographical information for it, needs to be able to find it on an organized list, as opposed to having to dig it out of a disorganized list, which is what the footnotes are. The alphabetical list can be dispensed with if there are only a few references—usefulness and what the reader really needs are the overriding principles—but the larger the number of references, the more important it becomes to have it. I have made a start on a proper "References" section by importing the short References list (only three items) from Criticism of Wikipedia. I have also inlined references to these three sources in appropriate places in the text, where required. These references and their placement in the text were valuable information in Criticism of Wikipedia, and I have been careful of it. Oh, and I have renamed the footnote section "Footnotes". I'm hoping somebody else will help with the work of adding all the other footnoted sources in alphabetical order to the new References section. Alphabetize by author's name where known, please, otherwise by article name or page name. If you like, feel free to list the sources without taking any trouble over formatting, I'll be dropping by to format them if required, and to add them myself if necessary. (I admit I'd like to see first if anybody's going to revert the work I've done so far. Feel free to be bold, as I was.) User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Simple English Wikipedia == I have come across the sister project [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Simple English Wikipedia], and i found that searching for it on wikipedia redirects to this article, even though it is not mentioned here. Shouldnt it at least be mentioned under Sister Projects, and perhaps even have its own article?--User:ColdFeet 04:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Is the name wikipedia copyrighted?== Originally posted by: User:Mir 03:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) at the top of the page, and never answered. :Yes, it is trademarked. See meta:Wikimedia_trademarks --User:Michael180 15:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) == Awards == We're meant to international, right? What about awards from other countries? I know that there have been ''several'' from Germany. Can we add info on these? - User:Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Why wikipedia`s goal be removed? == I put the section "Goal", I copied that from wikimedia official pages. Thanks for your answer.--User:gengiskanhg (User talk:Gengiskanhg) 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I can't quite find where it was removed, but it was a little bit too promotional (which is fine for the wikimedia official pages, but not for a neutral article about wikipedia). I suppose we could have a section on Wikipedia's goals, however I think it pretty much follows from the intro section. --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 11:35, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) ::It was merged yesterday by User:Meelar, with this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=15254438&oldid=15247122]. Hope this helps, User:smoddy 12:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Factoids? == I am doing a research project on Wikipedia itself (its ease of use, how to use, factual information on it, advantages compared to paper alternatives), and I was wondering if there were figures anywhere on how many pictures are hosted on Wikipedia. Moreover, if that information exists, I don't see a reason why it can't be featured on this page. --User:Pathogen1014 19:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I think the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm Wikipedia statistics] pages should prove useful. The number of images and other files on the English Wikipedia was 227,000 as of May 15, with a total of 645,000 total across all languages. The [http://commons.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Commons] has 100,000 files as of May 24. I can't give you the actual number of unique images on the site as a whole, as there's quite a few duplicates floating around. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 00:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Definite article == Does anyone else tend to call this website ''The Wikipedia'' as opposed to ''Wikipedia''. Perhaps a comment about usage of The should be added. User:131.111.250.45 14:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#REDIRECT Wikipedia
#REDIRECT Talk:Wikipedia
This user cannot be created as it would likely cause Wikipedia:Username. ====User:Wikipedia==== It can be created, but the name would most likely be changed. - User:Calmypal 23:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) *It has been already claimed, so keep. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 00:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) *What about User:Administrator? Should we have a policy of not allowing self-chosen names that imply official status? User:MK 23:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) *A developer should block having certain words in names. - User:Calmypal 19:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) I blocked. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 19:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Your username has been blocked as inappropriate, in line with our wikipedia:blocking policy. You are encouraged to Wikipedia:Why create an account? and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a Wikipedia:The perfect article manner. See wikipedia:username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. Alternatively, edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing namechanges, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in wikipedia:dealing with vandalism, we will remove that block as soon as possible - if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation to them - see wikipedia:list of administrators. Once you create a new account with an appropriate username, you may wish to leave a note at your old user page noting your new name. To merge the contributions from your old account into your new one, leave a note on Wikipedia:Changing username.
This category concerns Wikipedia itself, including Wikipedia management policies. Wikimedia projects br:Category:Wikipedia fa:Category:ویکیپدیا th:Category:วิกิพีเดีย vi:Category:Wikipedia
Isn't this doing the same job as the Wikipedia namespace? If I don't get a response in a while,(i.e. a month or so), I'll list this on Catagories for Deletion... User:JesseW 08:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) This page is actually the root of a tree that organizes all the pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Speaking of which, that tree needs to be finished being populated. If anyone can lend a hand, please see Wikipedia:Auto-categorization/Wikipedia namespace. All the things there need categorizing under this category (or deleting or merging or whatever). Right now, this category itself could also use some cleaning out by putting articles into appropriate subcategories and whatnot. I've been putting some work into it, but it's a large task and it would benefit from being seen by multiple eyes. -- User:Beland 05:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
''Wikipedia'' is a World Wide Web-based, Free content encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers and sponsored by the Non-profit organization Wikimedia. It has editions in roughly 200 different languages (about 100 of which are active) and contains entries both on traditional encyclopedic topics and on almanac, gazetteer, and current events topics. Its purpose is to create and distribute a free international encyclopedia in as many languages as possible. ''Wikipedia'' is one of the most popular reference sites on the internet, receiving around 60 million hits per day. ''Wikipedia'' contains approximately 1.6 million articles. More than 600,000 of these are in English Wikipedia, more than 240,000 in German Wikipedia, and more than 100,000 each in Japanese Wikipedia and French Wikipedia. It began as a complement to the expert-written ''Nupedia'' on January 15, 2001. Having steadily risen in popularity, it has spawned several sister projects, such as Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. It is edited by volunteers in wiki fashion, meaning articles are subject to change by nearly anyone. ''Wikipedia'''s volunteers enforce a policy of "neutral point of view" whereby views presented by notable persons or literature are summarized without an attempt to determine an objectivity (journalism) truth. Because of its open nature, vandalism and inaccuracy are problems in ''Wikipedia''. The status of ''Wikipedia'' as a reference work has been controversial, and it is both praised for its free distribution, free editing and wide range of topics and criticized for alleged systemic biases, deficiencies in some topics, and lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias. Its articles have been cited by the mass media and academia and are available under the GNU Free Documentation License. Its German language edition has been distributed on compact discs, and many of its other editions are Mirror (computing) or have been Fork (software) by websites. ==Characteristics== ''Wikipedia's'' goal is to create a free, reliable encyclopedia—indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth. ''Wikipedia'' is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." It is created on the wikipedia.org website using a type of computer software called a "wiki," from the Hawaiian language ''wiki wiki'' ("quick"). Wales intends that ''Wikipedia'' should achieve a standard comparable to that of the "''Encyclopædia Britannica'' or better" and be published in print. Several other Internet encyclopedia project exist or have existed on the Internet. Traditional editorial policies and article ownership are used in some, such as the expert-written ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the now-defunct ''Nupedia''. More casual websites such as H2G2 or Everything2 serve as general guides whose articles are written and controlled by individuals. Projects such as ''Wikipedia'', Susning.nu, and the ''Enciclopedia Libre'', are wikis in which articles are developed by numerous authors, and there is no formal process of review. ''Wikipedia'' has become the largest such encyclopedic wiki by article and word-count. Unlike many encyclopedias, it licenses its content under the GNU Free Documentation License. ''Wikipedia'' attempts to be an encyclopedia and not a complete compilation of human knowledge. There is a set of policies identifying kinds of information that are not appropriate for inclusion, known as WP:NOT. These policies are often cited in disputes over whether particular content should be added, removed, or revised. ===Free-content=== The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), the license under which ''Wikipedia'''s articles are made available, is one of many "copyleft" copyright licenses that permit the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content provided its authors are attributed and this content remains available under the GFDL. When an author contributes original material to the project, the copyright over it is retained with them, but they agree to make the work available under the GFDL. Material on ''Wikipedia'' may thus be distributed to, or incorporated from, resources which also use this license. ''Wikipedia'''s content has been mirrored or forked by hundreds of resources from database dumps. Although all text is available under the GFDL, a significant percentage of English ''Wikipedia'''s images and sounds are non-free. Items such as corporate logos, song samples, or copyrighted news photos are used with a claim of fair use. Material has also been given to ''Wikipedia'' under no-Derivative work or for-''Wikipedia''-only conditions. ''Wikipedia'' has been used by the media, academics, and others as a reference or supplement. News organizations have referred to ''Wikipedia'' articles as sources or in sidebars containing related information on the Web, some regularly. According to lists maintained by ''Wikipedia'''s editors, its articles have been cited most frequently in the news media. Less frequently, it has been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases. For instance, the Parliament of Canada website refers to ''Wikipedia'''s article on same-sex marriage in the "further reading" list of Bill C-38. Noncomprehensive lists are maintained by Wikipedians of ''Wikipedia'' as a source. Hello, my names G.Hunt and we've lived in Wikipedia all our lives. ===Language editions=== ''Wikipedia'' encompasses 92 "active" language editions as of March 2005. Its five largest editions are, in descending order, English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and Swedish Wikipedia. In total, ''Wikipedia'' contains 195 language editions of varying states with a combined 1.5 million articles. Language editions operate independently of one another. Editions are not bound to the content of other language editions, and are only held to global policies such as "neutral point of view". Articles and images are nonetheless shared between ''Wikipedia'' editions, the former through pages to request translations organized on many of the larger language editions, and the latter through the Wikimedia Commons repository. Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in any edition. The following is a list of the largest editions, sorted by number of articles as of May 2005. #English Wikipedia (575,835) #German Wikipedia (237,385) #Japanese Wikipedia (119,657) #French Wikipedia (111,722) #Swedish Wikipedia (78,193) #Dutch Wikipedia (72,261) #Polish Wikipedia (69,402) #Portuguese Wikipedia (50,970) #Spanish Wikipedia (49,929) #Italian Wikipedia (45,741) #Chinese Wikipedia (29,585) #Norwegian language (26,459) #Danish language (24,583) #Esperanto (24,110) #Finnish language (22,944) ==Editing== Almost all visitors may edit ''Wikipedia'''s articles and have their changes be instantly displayed. ''Wikipedia'' is built on the belief that collaboration among users will improve articles over time, in much the same way that Open source develops. Its authors need not have any expertise or formal qualifications in the subjects which they edit, and users are warned that their contributions may be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" by anyone who so wishes. Its articles are not controlled by any particular user or editorial group, and decision-making on the content and editorial policies of ''Wikipedia'' is instead done by Consensus decision-making and occasionally vote, though Jimmy Wales retains final judgment. By the nature of its openness, "edit wars" (also called "revert wars") and prolonged disputes often occur when editors do not agree. Members of its community have explained its editing process as a collaborative work, a Social Darwinism Evolution process." Articles are always subject to editing, such that ''Wikipedia'' does not declare any article finished. Vandalism has been a constant problem for ''Wikipedia''. ===Policies=== ''Wikipedia'' requires that its contributors observe a "neutral point of view" when writing, and not include original research. Neutral point of view, itself a "non-negotiable" policy, articulates the encyclopedia's goal of "''representing'' disputes, ''characterizing'' them, rather than engaging in them." If achieved, ''Wikipedia'' would not be written from a single "objective" point-of-view, but would fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way. The policy states that views should be given weight equal to their standing. This policy has been criticized as having an unattainable goal, being unnecessary with widely discredited material, and allowing the representation of "morally offensive" views. Opinions or theories that have not been previously published are considered "original research", which is not allowed. The "no original research" policy states that such material cannot be properly attributed under neutral point of view, and that editors' own novel ideas or perspectives are not to be introduced. ''Wikipedia'''s contributors additionally maintain a variety of lesser policies and guidelines. In contrast to other wikis of its time, such as Ward Cunningham's Portland Pattern Repository, Wikipedians use "talk" pages to discuss changes to articles, rather than discussing changes within the article itself. ''Wikipedia'' contributors often modify, move, or delete articles that are felt to be inappropriate to an encyclopedia, such as dictionary definitions ("dicdefs") or original source texts. Often, ''Wikipedia'' editions establish style conventions. ===Authors=== There are no formal distinctions between different editors on ''Wikipedia'', and decisions are ideally made by reaching consensus among those involved. During January 2005, ''Wikipedia'' had approximately 13,000 users who made at least five edits that month; 9,000 of these active users worked on its three largest language editions. A more active group of approximately 3,000 users made more than 100 edits per month, over half of these users having worked in the three largest editions. According to Wikimedia, one-quarter of ''Wikipedia'''s traffic comes from users without accounts, who are less likely to be editors. Maintenance tasks are performed by a group of volunteer developers, stewards, bureaucrats, and administrators, which number in the hundreds. Administrators are the largest such group, privileged with the ability to prevent articles from being edited, delete articles, or block users from editing in accordance with community policy. Many users have been temporarily or permanently blocked from editing ''Wikipedia''. Vandalism or the minor infraction of policies may result in a temporary block or warning, while long-term or permanent blocks are given by Wales or, on its English edition, an Arbitration Committee for prolonged and serious infractions. Former ''Wikipedia'' editor-in-chief Larry Sanger has said that having the GFDL license as a "guarantee of freedom is a strong motivation to work on a free encyclopedia." In a study of ''Wikipedia'' as a community, Economics professor Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in wiki software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a "creative construction" approach encourages participation. ''Wikipedia'' has been viewed as a social experiment in anarchy or democracy. Its founder has replied that it is not intended as one, though it is a consequence. In a page on researching with ''Wikipedia'', its authors argue that ''Wikipedia'' is valuable for being a social community. That is, authors can be asked to defend or clarify their work, and disputes are readily seen. ''Wikipedia'' editions also often contain reference desks in which the community answers questions. ==Evaluations== ''Wikipedia'''s claim to be or status as an encyclopedia has been controversial. ''Wikipedia'' has been criticized for a perceived lack of reliability, comprehensiveness, and authority. It is considered to have no or limited utility as a reference work among many librarians, Academias, and the editors of more formally written encyclopedias. ''Wikipedia'' is considered to be of sufficient quality in at least some areas by others, notably winning a comparative test by ''c't''. Much of its praise is for being both free-content and open to editing by anyone. ===Quality=== Critics argue that allowing anyone to edit makes ''Wikipedia'' an unreliable work. Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking, and the editors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about. In a 2004 interview with ''The Guardian'', librarian Philip Bradley said that he would not use ''Wikipedia'' and is "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window" (Waldman, 2004). Similarly, ''Encyclopædia Britannica'''s executive editor, Ted Pappas, was quoted in ''The Guardian'' as saying: "The premise of ''Wikipedia'' is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven." Discussing ''Wikipedia'' as an academic source, Danah Boyd said in 2005 that "[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes." Academic circles have not been exclusively dismissive of Wikipedia as a reference. Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal ''Science (journal)''. The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light" (Linden, 2002), and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. In a 2004 piece called "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia," former ''Britannica'' editor Robert McHenry criticized the wiki approach, writing, "[h]owever closely a ''Wikipedia'' article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler... The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." Aaron Krowne wrote a rebuttal article in which he criticized McHenry's methods, and labeled them "FUD," the marketing technique of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Former editor-in-chief Larry Sanger criticized ''Wikipedia'' in late 2004 for having, according to Sanger, an "anti-elitist" philosophy of active contempt for expertise. He further accused 'those who would on most Internet services be called ''Internet trolls'' of having "taken over" Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia'''s editing process assumes that exposing an article to many users will result in accuracy. Referencing Linus's law of open-source development, Sanger stated earlier: "Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow." Technology figure Joi Ito wrote on ''Wikipedia'''s authority, "[a]lthough it depends a bit on the field, the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived." Conversely, in an informal test of ''Wikipedia'''s ability to detect misinformation its author remarked that its process "isn't really a fact-checking mechanism so much as a voting mechanism", and that material which did not appear "blatantly false" may be accepted as true. ''Wikipedia'' has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg has argued that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. The entry on Hurricane Frances is five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on ''Coronation Street'' is twice as long as the article on Tony Blair." Former ''Nupedia'' editor-in-chief Larry Sanger stated in 2004, "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven." It has been praised for, as a wiki, allowing articles to be updated or created in response to current events. For example, the then-new article on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on its English edition was cited often by the press shortly after the incident. Its editors have also argued as a website, ''Wikipedia'' is able to include articles on a greater number of subjects than print encyclopedias may. Furthermore, it should be noted that by May 2005 Hoiberg's examples were no longer true: the article on Chinese art was roughly three times as long as the one on Hurricane Frances, and the article on Tony Blair was roughly 50% longer than the one on Coronation Street. Clearly, the articles in question were mentioned at the time merely as examples of a tendency toward lopsided coverage; however, they may also be referenced as examples of how the ''Wikipedia'' process tends toward a reasonable equilibrium. The German computing magazine ''c't'' performed a comparison of ''Brockhaus'', ''Encarta'', and ''Wikipedia'' in October 2004: . Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In overall score, ''Wikipedia'' was rated 3.6 out of 5 points ("B-"), ''Brockhaus Premium'' 3.3, and ''Microsoft Encarta'' 3.1. In an analysis of online encyclopedias, Indiana University professors Emigh and Herring wrote that "''Wikipedia'' improves on traditional information sources, especially for the content areas in which it is strong, such as technology and current events." A good analogy for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia's approach can be seen in looking at the difference between the standards of courtroom and investigative evidence. The fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone makes it difficult to claim it can be trusted with the same degree of certainty as one would expect from courtroom evidence. However, its openness to broader base of contributors allows it to achieve breadth and depth of creativity and connections that make it ideal for learning about and investigating ideas, similar to the way in which the more liberal use of investigative evidence can lead to important leads and further evidence that could have been strangled by applying the rigid standards of courtroom evidence. ===Community=== ''Wikipedia'' has a community of users who are proportionally few, but highly active. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices." Editors on Wikinfo, a fork of ''Wikipedia'', similarly argue that new or controversial editors to ''Wikipedia'' are often unjustly labeled "Internet trolls" or "problem users" and blocked from editing. Its community has also been criticised for expecting users who make complaints about an article's quality to fix it themselves. Several contributors have complained that editing Wikipedia is very tedious in the case of conflicts and that sufficiently dedicated contributors with idiosyncratic beliefs can push their point of view, because nobody has the time and energy to counteract the bias. In a page on researching with ''Wikipedia'', its authors argue that ''Wikipedia'' is valuable for being a social community. That is, authors can be asked to defend or clarify their work, and disputes are readily seen. ''Wikipedia'' editions also often contain reference desks in which the community answers questions. ===Awards=== ''Wikipedia'' won two major awards in May 2004: The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities, awarded by Prix Ars Electronica; this came with a 10,000 Euro grant and an invitation to present at the PAE Cyberarts Festival in Austria later that year. The second was a Judges' Webby Awards for the "community" category. ''Wikipedia'' was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby. In September 2004, the Japanese Wikipedia was awarded a Web Creation Award from the Japan Advertisers Association. This award, normally given to individuals for great contributions to the Web in Japanese, was accepted by a long-standing contributor on behalf of the project. ''Wikipedia'' has received plaudits from sources including BBC News, ''USA Today'', ''The Economist'', ''Newsweek'', ''BusinessWeek'', the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', ''Time Magazine'' and ''Wired Magazine''. Awards to the ''Wikipedia'' project and press clippings are listed by Wikimedia contributors on [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trophy_box its website]. On June 1, 2005, ''PC World (Magazine)'' released its list, "The 100 Best Products of 2005" in its July issue. It named ''Wikipedia'' one of the year's 100 best products. The magazine says that their award is for "great products [that] meld practical features with innovation." In spite of the designation, however, not all of the "products" are commercial in nature, and Wikipedia is actually one of 23 honorees that are available free of charge. Wikipedia came in at #60 overall on the ranked list, which was topped by Mozilla Firefox. The list — dominated by computer software and hardware products — included only a handful of other websites, among them Google, Flickr, and Internet Archive. Also included at #33 was the website of the ''The New York Times'', the only other information site to appear. In the same month, the Wikipedia widget for Apple Computer's Mac OS X "Tiger" ranked #3 of the most popular Apple Dashboard widgets (based on download frequency), beating out commercial encyclopedia Britannica's widget, which did not make the Top 50. ==History== [[Image:NupediaLogo.jpg|thumb||250px|''Wikipedia'' originated from ''Nupedia''.]] ''Wikipedia'' began as a complementary project of ''Nupedia'', a free online encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts through a formal process. ''Nupedia'' was founded on 9 March 2000 under the ownership of Bomis, a Web portal company. Its principal figures were Jimmy Wales, Bomis CEO and final authority , and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for ''Nupedia'' and later ''Wikipedia''. ''Nupedia'' was described by Sanger as differing from existing encyclopedias in being open content; not having size limitations, as it was on the Internet; and being free of bias, due to its public nature and potentially broad base of contributors. ''Nupedia'' had a seven-step review process by appointed subject-area experts, but was later widely viewed as too slow for producing a limited number of articles. Funded by Bomis, there were initial plans to recoup its investment by the use of advertisements. It was licensed under its own Nupedia Open Content License initially, switching to the GNU Free Documentation License prior to ''Wikipedia'''s founding at the urging of Richard Stallman. [[Image:WikipediaHomePage30March200.png|thumb|250px|''Wikipedia'''s English edition on March 20, 2001, two and one-half months after its founding.]] ''Wikipedia'' was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at wikipedia.com. It had been, from January 10, a feature of Nupedia.com in which the public could write articles which could be incorporated into ''Nupedia'' after review. But it was relaunched off-site after ''Nupedia'''s Advisory Board of subject experts disapproved of its production model. ''Wikipedia'' thereafter operated as a standalone project without control from ''Nupedia''. Its policy of "neutral point-of-view" was codified in its initial months, though is similar to ''Nupedia'''s earlier "nonbias" policy. There were otherwise few rules initially. ''Wikipedia'' gained early contributors from ''Nupedia'', Slashdot postings, and search engine indexing. It grew to approximately 20,000 articles among 18 language editions by the end of its first year. It had 26 language editions by the end of 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the end of 2004. ''Nupedia'' and ''Wikipedia'' coexisted until the former's servers went down, permanently, in 2003, and its text was incorporated into ''Wikipedia''. Wales and Sanger attribute the concept of using a wiki to Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb or Portland Pattern Repository. Wales mentioned that he heard the concept first from Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee of Bomis who showed him the same wiki, in December 2000, but it was after Sanger heard of its existence from Ben Kovitz, a regular at this wiki, in January 2001, and proposed a creation of a wiki for ''Nupedia'' to Wales that ''Wikipedia'''s history started. Under a similar concept of free content, though not wiki production, the GNUPedia project existed alongside ''Nupedia'' early in its history. It subsequently became inactive and its creator, free software figure Richard Stallman, lent his support to ''Wikipedia''. Citing fear of commercial advertising and lack of control in a perceived English-centric ''Wikipedia'', users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from ''Wikipedia'' to create the ''Enciclopedia Libre'' in February 2002. Later that year, Wales announced that ''Wikipedia'' would not display Advertising, and moved its website to wikipedia.org. Projects have since forked from ''Wikipedia'''s content for editorial reasons, such as Wikinfo, which abandoned "neutral point-of-view" in favor of multiple complementary articles written from a "sympathetic point-of-view." From ''Wikipedia'' and ''Nupedia'', the Wikimedia Foundation was created on June 20, 2003. ''Wikipedia'' and its sister projects thereafter operated under this non-profit organization. ''Wikipedia'''s first sister project, "In Memoriam: September 11 Wiki" had been created in October 2002 to detail the September 11, 2001 attacks; Wiktionary, a dictionary project, was launched in December 2002; Wikiquotes, a collection of quotes, a week after Wikimedia launched; and Wikibooks, a collection of collaboratively-written free books, the next month. Wikimedia has since started a number of other projects, detailed below. ''Wikipedia'' has traditionally measured its status by article count. In its first two years it grew at a few hundred or less new articles per day. The English ''Wikipedia'' reached a 100,000 article milestone on January 22, 2003. In 2004, its article growth rate was approximately 1,000 to 3,000 per day. In all editions, it reached 500,000 articles on February 25, 2004. ''Wikipedia'' reached its one millionth article among 105 language editions on September 20, 2004. ===Software and hardware=== ''Wikipedia'' is run by MediaWiki open source software on a cluster of dedicated servers located in Florida. MediaWiki is Phase III of the program's software. Originally, ''Wikipedia'' ran on UseModWiki by Clifford Adams (Phase I). At first it required CamelCase for links; later it was also possible to use double brackets. ''Wikipedia'' began running on a PHP wiki software with a MySQL database in January 2002. This software, Phase II, was written specifically for the ''Wikipedia'' project by Magnus Manske. Several rounds of modifications were made to improve performance in response to increased demand. Ultimately, the software was rewritten again, this time by Lee Daniel Crocker. Instituted in July 2002, this Phase III software was called MediaWiki. It was licensed under the GNU General Public License and used by all Wikimedia projects. ''Wikipedia'' was served from a single server until 2003, when the server setup was expanded into an n-tier distributed architecture. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache HTTP Server software, and seven Squid cache servers. By the first week of June 2005, the server cluster had grown to more than 60 servers, and, at the request of the operator of the colocation facility in which they were located, the entire cluster was (more or less) successfully 2005 Florida cluster relocation into the provider's new building, across a street in downtown Tampa, at about 4:30 in the morning. Page requests are processed by first passing to a front-end layer of Squid cache servers. Requests that cannot be served from the Squid cache are sent to two load-balancing servers running the perlbal software, which then pass the request to one of the Apache web servers for page-rendering from the database. The web servers serve pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the ''Wikipedia''s. To increase speed further, rendered pages for anonymous users are cached in a filesystem until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses. Wikimedia has begun building a global network of Squid cache with the addition of three such servers in France. A new Dutch cluster is also online now. The ongoing status of ''Wikipedia'''s website is posted by users at a [http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Wikipedia_Status status page] on OpenFacts. ==Sister projects== ''Wikipedia'' has free-content sister projects which fulfill non-encyclopedic roles. Its largest are: Wiktionary, a free dictionary project; Wikibooks, a free textbook project; Wikiquote, a free encyclopedia of quotations; Wikisource, a multilingual repository of free source texts; Wikimedia Commons, a shared media respository; and Wikinews, a free news source. ''Wikipedia'' and its sister projects are administered by the Wikimedia. ==See also== *Internet encyclopedia project ==Notes== #According to Alexa Internet, "[http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=10 Browse:Reference]" (28 March 2005). #See plots at "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/PlotsPngUsageVisits.htm Visits per day]", ''Wikipedia'' Statistics, 1 January 2005. #Jimmy Wales, "[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-March/038102.html Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]", 8 March 2005,.
#For example, see statistics and licenses on the English edition at "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]", ''Wikipedia'' (9 March 2005).
#Andrew Lih, "[http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdf Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource]" (Portable Document Format), ''5th International Symposium on Online Journalism'', April 2004.
#"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2005 Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2005]", ''Wikipedia'' (28 March 2005).
#"[http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Lang=E&Chamber=C&StartList=2&EndList=200&Session=13&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4381&List=toc C-38]", LEGISINFO (28 March 2005).
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_source Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a source]
#"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_language_Wikipedias_available Complete list of language Wikipedias available]", Meta-Wiki (22 May 2005).
#"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaZZ.htm All languages]", ''Wikipedia'' statistics, 21 March 2005.
#For example, "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation_into_English Wikipedia: Translation into English]," ''Wikipedia''. (9 March 2005).
#"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_language_Wikipedias_available Complete list of language Wikipedias available]", Meta Wikimedia (28 March 2005).
#"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Power_structure Power structure]", Meta-Wiki, 10:55 4 Apr 2005.
#"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war Wikipedia:Edit war]", ''Wikipedia'' (26 March 2005).
#"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_sociology Wikipedia sociology]", Meta-Wiki, 23:30 24 Mar 2005.
#Fernanda B. Viegas, Martin Wattenberg, and Kushal Dave, "[http://web.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with ''history flow'' Visualizations]", CHI 2004 April 24-29 2004. Preliminary report "[http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/history/ History Flow]" available on IBM website.
#Jimmy Wales, "[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html Articles about ourselves]", 5 November 2003, .
#"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]", ''Wikipedia'', accessed 4 March 2005. Italics original.
#"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view".
#"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Wikipedia:No original research]", ''Wikipedia'', (4 March 2005).
#"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]", ''Wikipedia'' (4 March 2005).
#Paragraph's statistics taken from "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm Active wikipedians]" (Wikipedia Statistics, 21 March 2005).
#"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia]", Meta-Wiki, 08:02 30 Mar 2005.
#Larry Sanger, "[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias]", Kuro5hin, 25 July 2001.
#Andrea Ciffolilli, "[http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/ciffolilli/index.html Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia]", First Monday December 2003.
#Jimmy Wales, "[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018735.html Re: Illegitimate block]", 26 January 2005, .
#"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia]", ''Wikipedia'' (28 March 2005).
#Simon Waldman, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1335892,00.html Who knows?]", ''The Guardian'', 26 October 2004.
#Danah Boyd, "[http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php Academia and Wikipedia]", Many-to-Many, 4 January 2005.
#Robert McHenry, "[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html The Faith-Based Encyclopedia]", Tech Central Station, 15 November 2004.
#Aaron Krowne, "[http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_02/fud_based_encyclopedia/ The FUD-based Encyclopedia]", Free Software Magazine, 1 March 2005.
#Larry Sanger, "[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism]", Kuro5hin, 31 December 2004.
#Larry Sanger, "[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense?]", Kuro5hin, 24 September 2001.
#Joi Ito, "[http://joi.ito.com/archives/2004/08/29/wikipedia_attacked_by_ignorant_reporter.html#c014592 Wikipedia attacked by ignorant reporter]", Joi Ito's Web, 29 August 2004.
#Anonymous blogger, "[http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/ How Authoritative is Wikipedia]", Dispatches from the Frozen North, 4 September 2004.
#"Who knows?"
#Larry Sanger, "[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism ]", Kuro5hin, 31 December 2004.
#"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections Wikipedia:Replies to common objections]", ''Wikipedia'', 22:53 13 Apr 2005.
#Michael Kurzidim: Wissenswettstreit. Die kostenlose Wikipedia tritt gegen die Marktführer Encarta und Brockhaus an, in: c't 21/2004, 4 October 2004, S. 132-139.
#William Emigh and Susan C. Herring, "[http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/wiki.pdf Collaborative Authoring on the Web: A Genre Analysis of Online Encyclopedias]", paper presented at the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004.
#"[http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Critical_views_of_Wikipedia Critical views of Wikipedia]", Wikinfo, 07:28 30 Mar 2005.
#Andrew Orlowski, "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/23/wiki_fiddlers_big_book/ Wiki-fiddlers defend Clever Big Book]", The Register, 23 July 2004.
# "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia]", ''Wikipedia'' (28 March 2005).
#"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trophy_box Trophy Box]", Meta-Wiki (28 March 2005).
#Larry Sanger, "[http://web.archive.org/web/20000510132952/www.nupedia.com/interview.html Q & A about Nupedia]", Nupedia, March 2000.
#Larry Sanger, "Q & A about Nupedia", Nupedia, March 2000.
#Larry Sanger, "[http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml?tid=95 The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir]", Slashdot, 18 April 2005.
#"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics]", ''Wikipedia'', 30 March 2005.
#Jimmy Wales, "[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-April/039093.html Re: Sanger's memoirs]", 20 April 2005,.
#Larry Sanger, "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir", Slashdot, 18 April 2005.
#Richard Stallman, "[http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html The Free Encyclopedia Project]", Free Software Foundation, 1999.
#Jimmy Wales, "[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-June/010690.html Announcing Wikimedia Foundation]", 20 June 2003, .
#"[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/500%2C000_Wikipedia_articles 500,000 Wikipedia articles]", Wikimedia Foundation, 25 February 2004.
#See "[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/One_million_Wikipedia_articles_(US) Wikipedia Reaches One Million Articles]", Wikimedia Foundation, 20 September 2004.
==References==
* Linden, Hartmut (August 2, 2002). [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5582/777 "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light"]. ''Science Magazine'', 297 (5582). (Subscription access only).
* Waldman, Simon (October 26, 2004). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1335892,00.html "Who knows?"] ''The Guardian''.
* McHenry, Robert (November 15, 2004). [http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia"]. ''Tech Central Station''
==Further reading==
*Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Introduction]
*Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ Frequently Asked Questions]
*Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases Press releases]
*Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_coverage Press coverage]
*Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm Statistics]
*Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great Why Wikipedia is not so great]
*Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections Replies to common objections]
*Open Directory Project: [http://dmoz.org/Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/Wikipedia/ Wikipedia]
*OpenFacts: [http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Copies_of_Wikipedia_content Copies of Wikipedia content]
*SourceWatch: [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wikipedia Wikipedia]
==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org wikipedia.org], multi-lingual portal
*[http://en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org], English language edition
*[http://meta.wikipedia.org/ Meta-Wiki], policy-related and technical discussions regarding Wikimedia
*[http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Wikimedia Foundation], parent organization of Wikipedia
*[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir.], by Larry Sanger
Online encyclopedias
Wikipedia
Wikimedia projects
als:Wikipedia
ang:Wicipǽdia
ay:Wikipedia
bm:Wikipedia
bn:উইকিপিডিয়া
bs:Wikipedija
chr:ᏫᎩᏇᏗᏯ
fa:ویکیپدیا
fj:Wikipedia
fo:Wikipedia
ga:Vicipéid
gu:વિકિપીડિયા
hi:विकिपीडिया
ht:Wikipedia
kw:Wikipedia
la:Vicipaedia
li:Wikipedia
lv:Vikipēdija
ms:Wikipedia
mt:Wikipedija
na:Wikipedia
nds:Wikipedia
qu:Wikipidiya
roa-rup:Uichipedia
scn:Wikipedia
sco:Wikipaedia
simple:Wikipedia
sq:Wikipedia
su:Wikipédia
th:วิกิพีเดีย
tpi:Wikipedia
vi:Wikipedia
zh-min-nan:Wikipedia
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Wikipedia:
WIKIPEDIA
WIKIPEDIA
WikiPedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia's_oldest_article
Wikipedia's_oldest_articles
Wikipedia,Jesus,Hitler
Wikipedia,_the_free_encyclopedia
Wikipedia-CD/Download
Wikipedia-en
Wikipedia-Goldmark-l.jpg
Wikipedia-Goldmark-r.jpg
Wikipedia-L
Wikipedia-L
Wikipedia-L
Wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-me.jpg
Wikipedia-me.jpg
Wikipedia-mode.el
Wikipedia-mode.el
Wikipedia-namespace
Wikipedia-namespace
Wikipedia-screenshot
Wikipedia-screenshot.jpg
Wikipedia-stub
Wikipedia-Supported_Software
Wikipedia-Supported_Software
Wikipedia-WillYouMarryMe?
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia./monobook.css
Wikipedia.com
Wikipedia.com
Wikipedia.contributor
Wikipedia.contributor
Wikipedia.doc
Wikipedia.jpg
Wikipedia.org
Wikipedia.vim
Wikipedia/Archive_1
Wikipedia/Archive_2
Wikipedia/Archive_3
Wikipedia/Archive_4
Wikipedia/Article_a_day_queue
Wikipedia/Article_a_day_queue
Wikipedia/Article_a_Day_Talk
Wikipedia/Building_membership
Wikipedia/Date_for_Homepage
Wikipedia/Heirarchical_Linking_System_proposal
Wikipedia/History
Wikipedia/Logos_and_slogans
Wikipedia/Logos_and_slogans
Wikipedia/Magic_Button
Wikipedia/Most_popular_pages
Wikipedia/Most_popular_pages_October_2001
Wikipedia/Most_popular_pages_October_2001
Wikipedia/Nupedia2Wikipedia
Wikipedia/Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics
Wikipedia/Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics
Wikipedia/Questions
Wikipedia/Replies_to_Critics_Talk
Wikipedia/Temp
Wikipedia/votes_for_deletion
Wikipedia1
Wikipedia100
Wikipedia111
Wikipedia3fnlc.svg
Wikipedia3_documentation
Wikipedia3_documentation
WIKIPEDIA4
Wikipedia4
WIKIPEDIA5
Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense
Wikipedia:Don't_be_a_dick
Wikipedia:Favorite_pages_of_banned_users
Wikipedia:Goings-on
Wikipedia:List_of_articles_with_C_programs
Wikipedia:List_of_pages_whose_correct_title_is_not_allowed_by_the_Wikipedia_software
Wikipedia:Microstub
Wikipedia:Namespace
Wikipedia:namespace
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Kenney
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jwrosenzweig
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein
Wikipedia:Sollog_sock_puppets
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_CheeseDreams
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_JohnMarkham
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_KaintheScion
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Sollog
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_UDoN't!wAn*
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Wik
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Wikipedia_is_Communism
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Introversion_-_Extroversion
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vaughan_Secondary_School
Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservation_Worldwide
Wikipedia:Wikispam
Wikipedia:_unencyclopedic
Wikipedia;sandbox
WikipediaAdmin
WikipediaAdmin
WikipediaAdministrator
WikipediaAdministrator
WikiPediaAid
WikiPediaAid
WikiPediaAnnouncements
WikiPediaAnnouncements/February2001
WikiPediaAnnouncements/January2001
WikiPediaBugs
Wikipediacanal.jpg
Wikipediacats
Wikipediacats
Wikipediacats-flat
Wikipediacats-flat
WikiPediaFaq
WikipediaFAQ
WikipediaFAQ
WikipediaFAQBottom
Wikipediagirl4ever
Wikipediagoingson
Wikipediaguy
Wikipediaholic
Wikipediaholic_clinic
Wikipediaintro
Wikipediaintro
Wikipediaintro
WikipediaL
WikipediaLang
WikipediaLang
Wikipedialang
Wikipedialang
Wikipedialang
Wikipedialang/archive1
Wikipedialang/archive2
Wikipedialang/Proposal
Wikipedialang_(word_count)
Wikipedialang_(word_count)
Wikipediamarek
Wikipedian
Wikipedian
Wikipedian
Wikipedian231
Wikipedian231
Wikipedian231/extrapage
Wikipedian231/Louis_Carnec
Wikipedian231/Sandbox
Wikipedian231/sandbox
Wikipedianarticle
Wikipedianarticle
WikiPedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians/
Wikipedians/''Green''_users
Wikipedians/Acadia
Wikipedians/Alabama
Wikipedians/Alabama
Wikipedians/Alaska
Wikipedians/Alaska
Wikipedians/Albania
Wikipedians/Algeria
Wikipedians/Allegheny_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Americans
Wikipedians/American_Samoa
Wikipedians/Andorra
Wikipedians/Andorra
Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
Wikipedians/Anti-Iraq_War_users
Wikipedians/Argentina
Wikipedians/Argentina
Wikipedians/Arizona
Wikipedians/Arizona
Wikipedians/Arkansas
Wikipedians/Armenia
Wikipedians/Aruba
Wikipedians/Australia
Wikipedians/Australia
Wikipedians/Australia
Wikipedians/Australians
Wikipedians/Australia_and_New_Zealand
Wikipedians/Austria
Wikipedians/Austria
Wikipedians/Azerbaijan
Wikipedians/Bangladesh
Wikipedians/Barbados
Wikipedians/Basque_Country
Wikipedians/Basque_Country
Wikipedians/Basque_Country_Basque_Country_Euskal-Herria
Wikipedians/Beaver_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Belarus
Wikipedians/Belgium
Wikipedians/Belgium
Wikipedians/Bergen_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Berks_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Bermuda
Wikipedians/Blair_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Bolivia
Wikipedians/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
Wikipedians/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
Wikipedians/Brazil
Wikipedians/Brazil
Wikipedians/Brittany
Wikipedians/Bulgaria
Wikipedians/Bulgaria
Wikipedians/Butler_County,_PA
Wikipedians/California
Wikipedians/California
Wikipedians/Camden_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Cameroon
Wikipedians/Canada
Wikipedians/Canada
Wikipedians/Canada
Wikipedians/Canadians
Wikipedians/Cartographers
Wikipedians/Cartographers
Wikipedians/Catalonia
Wikipedians/Catalonia
Wikipedians/Centre_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Cherry_Hill,_New_Jersey
Wikipedians/Chester_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Chester_County,_PA/Caln_Township
Wikipedians/Chile
Wikipedians/Chile
Wikipedians/China
Wikipedians/China
Wikipedians/China
Wikipedians/ClaudineChionh
Wikipedians/Clearfield_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Colombia
Wikipedians/Colorado
Wikipedians/Colorado
Wikipedians/Connecticut
Wikipedians/Connecticut
Wikipedians/Corea
Wikipedians/Corea
Wikipedians/Croatia
Wikipedians/Croatia
Wikipedians/Cuba
Wikipedians/Cyprus
Wikipedians/Czech_Republic
Wikipedians/Czech_Republic
Wikipedians/Daejeon
Wikipedians/Delaware
Wikipedians/Delaware
Wikipedians/Delaware_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Denmark
Wikipedians/Denmark
Wikipedians/District_of_Columbia
Wikipedians/District_of_Columbia
Wikipedians/District_of_Columbia
Wikipedians/Ecuador
Wikipedians/Egypt
Wikipedians/England
Wikipedians/Essex_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Estonia
Wikipedians/Estonia
Wikipedians/Europe
Wikipedians/Faroe_Islands
Wikipedians/Fiji
Wikipedians/Finland
Wikipedians/Finland
Wikipedians/Finns
Wikipedians/Florida
Wikipedians/Florida
Wikipedians/Florida
Wikipedians/France
Wikipedians/France
Wikipedians/France
Wikipedians/Georgia
Wikipedians/Georgia
Wikipedians/Georgia,_USA
Wikipedians/Georgia,_USA
Wikipedians/Germans
Wikipedians/Germany
Wikipedians/Germany
Wikipedians/Ghana
Wikipedians/Gloucester_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Graphic_Artists
Wikipedians/Graphic_Artists
Wikipedians/Graphic_artists
Wikipedians/Graphic_artists
Wikipedians/Greece
Wikipedians/Greece
Wikipedians/Greece
Wikipedians/Green_users
Wikipedians/Green_users
Wikipedians/Guadeloupe
Wikipedians/Haddonfield,_New_Jersey
Wikipedians/Hawaii
Wikipedians/History
Wikipedians/History
Wikipedians/History
Wikipedians/History_talk
Wikipedians/Hondurans
Wikipedians/Honduras
Wikipedians/Hong_Kong
Wikipedians/Hong_Kong
Wikipedians/Hungary
Wikipedians/Hungary
Wikipedians/Iceland
Wikipedians/Idaho
Wikipedians/Idaho
Wikipedians/Illinois
Wikipedians/Illinois
Wikipedians/India
Wikipedians/India
Wikipedians/India
Wikipedians/Indiana
Wikipedians/Indiana
Wikipedians/Indonesia
Wikipedians/Indonesia
Wikipedians/Iowa
Wikipedians/Iowa
Wikipedians/Iran
Wikipedians/Iran
Wikipedians/Iraq
Wikipedians/Ireland
Wikipedians/Irish
Wikipedians/Israel
Wikipedians/Israel
Wikipedians/Israelians
Wikipedians/Israelis
Wikipedians/Italy
Wikipedians/Italy
Wikipedians/Jamaica
Wikipedians/Japan
Wikipedians/Japan
Wikipedians/Japan
Wikipedians/Jordan
Wikipedians/Kansas
Wikipedians/Kansas
Wikipedians/Kentucky
Wikipedians/Kentucky
Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedians/Lackawanna_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Lancaster_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Latvia
Wikipedians/Lebanon
Wikipedians/Lehigh_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Liberia
Wikipedians/Libya
Wikipedians/Linux_users
Wikipedians/Lithuania
Wikipedians/Louisiana
Wikipedians/Louisiana
Wikipedians/Luxembourg
Wikipedians/Macao
Wikipedians/Mac_users
Wikipedians/Mac_users
Wikipedians/Maine
Wikipedians/Maine
Wikipedians/Malaysia
Wikipedians/Malaysia
Wikipedians/Maldives
Wikipedians/Malta
Wikipedians/Malta
Wikipedians/Maryland
Wikipedians/Maryland
Wikipedians/Massachusetts
Wikipedians/Massachusetts
Wikipedians/Massachusetts
Wikipedians/Mercer_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Mexico
Wikipedians/Mexico
Wikipedians/Michigan
Wikipedians/Michigan
Wikipedians/Middlesex_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Minnesota
Wikipedians/Minnesota
Wikipedians/Mississippi
Wikipedians/Mississippi
Wikipedians/Missouri
Wikipedians/Missouri
Wikipedians/Moldova
Wikipedians/Mongolia
Wikipedians/Mongolian
Wikipedians/Montana
Wikipedians/Montana
Wikipedians/Morocco
Wikipedians/Morris_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Myanmar
Wikipedians/Nebraska
Wikipedians/Nebraska
Wikipedians/Neopagan
Wikipedians/Neopagan
Wikipedians/Nepal
Wikipedians/Nevada
Wikipedians/Nevada
Wikipedians/New_Hampshire
Wikipedians/New_Hampshire
Wikipedians/New_Jersey
Wikipedians/New_Jersey
Wikipedians/New_Mexico
Wikipedians/New_York
Wikipedians/New_York
Wikipedians/New_Zealand
Wikipedians/New_Zealand
Wikipedians/New_Zealand
Wikipedians/Nigeria
Wikipedians/Northern_Ireland
Wikipedians/Northrop_High_School
Wikipedians/North_Carolina
Wikipedians/North_Carolina
Wikipedians/North_Carolina
Wikipedians/North_Dakota
Wikipedians/North_Korea
Wikipedians/Norway
Wikipedians/Norway
Wikipedians/Occitan
Wikipedians/Ohio
Wikipedians/Ohio
Wikipedians/Ohio
Wikipedians/Oklahoma
Wikipedians/old
Wikipedians/Ontario
Wikipedians/Oregon
Wikipedians/Oregon
Wikipedians/Oregon
Wikipedians/Other
Wikipedians/Other
Wikipedians/Other
Wikipedians/Pakistan
Wikipedians/Pakistan
Wikipedians/Paraguay
Wikipedians/Passaic_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Pennsauken,_New_Jersey
Wikipedians/Pennsylvania
Wikipedians/Pennsylvania
Wikipedians/Peru
Wikipedians/Philadelphia_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Philippines
Wikipedians/Philippines
Wikipedians/Photographers
Wikipedians/Photographers
Wikipedians/Pitcairn_Islands
Wikipedians/Poland
Wikipedians/Poland
Wikipedians/Poles
Wikipedians/Portugal
Wikipedians/Portugal
Wikipedians/Portuguese
Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico
Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico
Wikipedians/Punks
Wikipedians/Quebec
Wikipedians/Quebec
Wikipedians/Québec
Wikipedians/Queer
Wikipedians/Queer
Wikipedians/Republic_of_Ireland
Wikipedians/Republic_of_Ireland
Wikipedians/Rhode_Island
Wikipedians/Rhode_Island
Wikipedians/Romania
Wikipedians/Romania
Wikipedians/Roots_Rock_Reggae_Security_Investigators
Wikipedians/Roots_Rock_Reggae_Security_Investigators
Wikipedians/Russia
Wikipedians/Russia
Wikipedians/Saudi_Arabia
Wikipedians/Scotland
Wikipedians/Serbia_&_Montenegro
Wikipedians/Serbia_and_Montenegro
Wikipedians/Singapore
Wikipedians/Singapore
Wikipedians/Singapore
Wikipedians/Slovakia
Wikipedians/Slovakia
Wikipedians/Slovenia
Wikipedians/Slovenia
Wikipedians/Somewhere_unspecified_in_the_United_States_of_America
Wikipedians/South_Africa
Wikipedians/South_Africa
Wikipedians/South_Africa
Wikipedians/South_Carolina
Wikipedians/South_Dakota
Wikipedians/South_Korea
Wikipedians/South_Korea
Wikipedians/South_Korea
Wikipedians/Spain
Wikipedians/Spain
Wikipedians/Sri_Lanka
Wikipedians/Suriname
Wikipedians/Suriname
Wikipedians/Surrealist_Wikipedians
Wikipedians/Sweden
Wikipedians/Sweden
Wikipedians/Sweden
Wikipedians/Switzerland
Wikipedians/Switzerland
Wikipedians/Syria
Wikipedians/Taiwan
Wikipedians/Taiwan
Wikipedians/Technical_Communicators
Wikipedians/Tennessee
Wikipedians/Tennessee
Wikipedians/Texas
Wikipedians/Texas
Wikipedians/Texas
Wikipedians/Thailand
Wikipedians/The_Netherlands
Wikipedians/The_Netherlands
Wikipedians/Transcribers
Wikipedians/Transcribers
Wikipedians/Translators
Wikipedians/Translators
Wikipedians/Trinidad_And_Tobago
Wikipedians/Trinidad_and_Tobago
Wikipedians/Turkey
Wikipedians/Turkey
Wikipedians/Ukraine
Wikipedians/Ukraine
Wikipedians/United_Kingdom
Wikipedians/United_Kingdom
Wikipedians/United_Kingdom
Wikipedians/United_Kingdom
Wikipedians/United_States
Wikipedians/United_States
Wikipedians/Uruguay
Wikipedians/Utah
Wikipedians/Utah
Wikipedians/Vegetarians
Wikipedians/Vegetarians
Wikipedians/Vegetarians
Wikipedians/Venezuela
Wikipedians/Vermont
Wikipedians/Vermont
Wikipedians/Vietnam
Wikipedians/Virginia
Wikipedians/Virginia
Wikipedians/Virginia
Wikipedians/Voorhees,_New_Jersey
Wikipedians/Wales
Wikipedians/Washington
Wikipedians/Washington
Wikipedians/Washington
Wikipedians/Wayne_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Westmoreland_County,_PA
Wikipedians/West_Virginia
Wikipedians/West_Virginia
Wikipedians/Wisconsin
Wikipedians/Wisconsin
Wikipedians/Wisconsin
Wikipedians/World_Citizen
Wikipedians/World_Citizen
Wikipedians/World_citizens
Wikipedians/World_citizens
Wikipedians/Wyoming
Wikipedians:Wikipedians/Malta
WikipediansBreakdownMBTI.jpg
Wikipedians_(old)
Wikipedians_(old)
Wikipedians_are_Anarchists
Wikipedians_Asia
Wikipedians_by_alma_mater
Wikipedians_by_alma_mater
Wikipedians_by_birthday
Wikipedians_by_birthday
Wikipedians_by_country
Wikipedians_by_culture
Wikipedians_by_culture/Hispanic
Wikipedians_by_D&D_alignment
Wikipedians_by_D&D_alignment
Wikipedians_by_edits
Wikipedians_by_favorite_sport
Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest
Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest
Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest
Wikipedians_by_most_recent_edit
Wikipedians_by_most_recent_edit
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/scripts
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits_(July_2003)
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits_(July_2003)
Wikipedians_by_number_of_recent_edits
Wikipedians_by_organization
Wikipedians_by_pet
Wikipedians_by_profession
Wikipedians_by_race
Wikipedians_by_race
Wikipedians_by_race
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_sex
Wikipedians_by_sex
Wikipedians_by_sex
Wikipedians_by_skill
Wikipedians_by_U.S._state
Wikipedians_Canada
Wikipedians_Central_America
WIkipedians_from_Puerto_Rico
Wikipedians_in_order_of_arrival
Wikipedians_New_Europe
Wikipedians_North_America
Wikipedians_of_Argentina
Wikipedians_Old_Europe
Wikipedians_Old_Europe
Wikipedians_resources
Wikipedians_resources
Wikipedians_somewhere_unspecified_in_the_United_States_of_America
Wikipedians_South_America
Wikipedians_sub_pages
Wikipedians_United_States
Wikipedians_using_foreign-character_sigs
Wikipedians_using_foreign-character_sigs
Wikipedians_who_blog
Wikipedians_with_article
Wikipedians_with_articles
Wikipedians_with_articles
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_0
Wikipedians_with_Wikistress_Level_1
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_1
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_2
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_3
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_4
Wikipedian_actuarialists
Wikipedian_applied_mathematicians
Wikipedian_artists
Wikipedian_citizens_of_the_world
Wikipedian_citizens_of_the_world
Wikipedian_computer_scientists
Wikipedian_cryptographers
Wikipedian_edit_archive
Wikipedian_in_the_Cleanup_Taskforce
Wikipedian_journalists
Wikipedian_journalists
Wikipedian_Livejournalers
Wikipedian_mathematicians
Wikipedian_military
Wikipedian_musicians
Wikipedian_organizations
Wikipedian_programmers
Wikipedian_random_pages
Wikipedian_with_articles
Wikipedian_with_most_edits
Wikipediapage
Wikipediapage
WikipediaParamotor.jpg
WikiPediaProcess
WikipediArt
WikipediaSister
WikipediaSister
Wikipediasister
Wikipediasister
Wikipediasister
Wikipediasister-list
Wikipediasister-list
Wikipediasister-list
WikipediaSister/CSS
WikipediaSister/temp
Wikipediasistertablefree
Wikipediasistertablefree
Wikipediasister_(text_only)
Wikipediastatistics
WIKIPEDIASUCKS
WIKIPEDIASUCKS
Wikipedias_by_language
Wikipediatag
WikipediaTOC
WikipediaTOC
Wikipediatoc
Wikipediatoc
Wikipediatoc-main
Wikipediatoc-main
Wikipediatoc/layout
Wikipediatoc/layout
Wikipediatoc/layout
Wikipediatoc_with_icons
Wikipediatoc_with_icons
Wikipediatoc_with_icons
Wikipediatoc_with_icons
WikipediaTodo
WikipediaTodo/to_do
WikipediaWontBlockMeImSpecial
Wikipedia_(canonization)
Wikipedia_(Interlanguage_link)
Wikipedia_-_Three-revert_rule.ogg
Wikipedia_1.0
Wikipedia_1.0
Wikipedia_1.0
Wikipedia_access_via_WAP
Wikipedia_access_via_WAP
Wikipedia_Addiction
Wikipedia_Admin
Wikipedia_Admin
Wikipedia_Administration
Wikipedia_Administration
Wikipedia_Administrator
Wikipedia_Administrator
Wikipedia_administrators
Wikipedia_ain't
Wikipedia_ain't_no
Wikipedia_AMA
Wikipedia_ambassador
Wikipedia_and_race
Wikipedia_and_Religion
Wikipedia_and_Religion
Wikipedia_Annoucements_February_2002
Wikipedia_Annoucements_January_2002
Wikipedia_Announcements
Wikipedia_Announcements
Wikipedia_Announcements/April_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/August_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/December_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/February_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/January_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/July_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/June_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/Larrys_Wedding_Card
Wikipedia_Announcements/March_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/May_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/November_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/October_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/September_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements_April_2002
Wikipedia_announcements_archive
Wikipedia_Announcements_March_2002
Wikipedia_Announcements_May_2002
Wikipedia_approval_mechanism
Wikipedia_approval_mechanism
Wikipedia_approval_mechanism
Wikipedia_ArbCom_elections_archive
Wikipedia_Arbitration_Committee
Wikipedia_archives
Wikipedia_ARD_TagesSchau.jpg
Wikipedia_arranged_by_topic
Wikipedia_arranged_by_topic
Wikipedia_arranged_by_topic
Wikipedia_arranged_by_topic
Wikipedia_article
Wikipedia_articles_are_not
Wikipedia_articles_based_upon_websites
Wikipedia_articles_based_upon_websites
Wikipedia_articles_dealing_with_east_of_the_Oder-Neisse_Line_topics
Wikipedia_articles_dealing_with_topics_related_to_current_Polish_territories
Wikipedia_articles_dealing_with_topics_related_to_current_Polish_territories
Wikipedia_articles_dealing_with_topics_related_to_the_Oder-Neisse_Line
Wikipedia_articles_in_need_of_updating
Wikipedia_articles_needing_clarification
Wikipedia_articles_needing_context
Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit
Wikipedia_articles_needing_factual_verification
Wikipedia_articles_needing_factual_verification
Wikipedia_articles_needing_rewrite
Wikipedia_articles_needing_style_editing
Wikipedia_articles_needing_their_fiction_made_clear
Wikipedia_articles_of_dubious_importance
Wikipedia_articles_of_dubious_importance
Wikipedia_articles_per_population
Wikipedia_articles_per_population
Wikipedia_articles_per_population
Wikipedia_articles_per_population
Wikipedia_articles_that_are_too_technical
Wikipedia_articles_that_are_too_technical
Wikipedia_articles_that_might_be_vanity
Wikipedia_articles_that_need_translation
Wikipedia_articles_to_be_transwikied
Wikipedia_articles_which_could_be_improved_by_explaining_significance
Wikipedia_articles_with_nonstandard_pronunciation
Wikipedia_article_lists
Wikipedia_as_an_academic_source
Wikipedia_as_an_academic_source
Wikipedia_as_a_book_source
Wikipedia_as_a_book_source
Wikipedia_as_a_conference_paper_source
Wikipedia_as_a_court_source
Wikipedia_as_a_media_source
Wikipedia_as_a_media_topic
Wikipedia_as_a_news_source
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2004
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2004
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2005
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2005
Wikipedia_as_a_source
Wikipedia_as_TomeRaider_database
Wikipedia_as_TomeRaider_database_-_download_instructions
Wikipedia_autorickshaw_pm..jpg
Wikipedia_awards
Wikipedia_awards
Wikipedia_backlog
Wikipedia_bad_jokes_and_other_undeleted_nonsense
Wikipedia_banners_and_logos
Wikipedia_banners_and_logos
Wikipedia_basic_information
Wikipedia_basic_information
Wikipedia_Bio_COTW_Nominees
Wikipedia_blows_chunks
Wikipedia_Bookmark.jpg
Wikipedia_bots
Wikipedia_bugs
Wikipedia_case_user:RK
Wikipedia_categories_in_need_of_attention
Wikipedia_categorization
Wikipedia_category_redirects
Wikipedia_category_schemes
Wikipedia_category_schemes
Wikipedia_Chat
Wikipedia_chat
Wikipedia_circa_1969.JPG
Wikipedia_cited_on_usenet
Wikipedia_cleanup
Wikipedia_cleanup_check
Wikipedia_cocktail_guide
Wikipedia_collaborations
Wikipedia_commentary/Making_fun_of_Britannica
Wikipedia_commentary/Making_fun_of_Britannica
Wikipedia_commentary/Project_Sourceberg
Wikipedia_commentary/Project_Sourceberg
Wikipedia_commentary/Responding_to_the_Critics
Wikipedia_commentary/Responding_to_the_Critics
Wikipedia_commentary/Search_Engine
Wikipedia_commentary/Search_Engine
Wikipedia_commentary/Wikipedia_quality
Wikipedia_commentary/Wikipedia_quality
Wikipedia_Commentary/Wiki_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_commentary/Wiki_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_Commons
Wikipedia_community
Wikipedia_community
Wikipedia_community_forums
Wikipedia_contains_spoilers
Wikipedia_contains_spoilers
Wikipedia_Cookbook
Wikipedia_Cookbook
Wikipedia_Copyright
Wikipedia_copyright
Wikipedia_copyright_issues
Wikipedia_copy_editing
Wikipedia_culture
Wikipedia_Day
Wikipedia_Day
Wikipedia_Day
Wikipedia_day
Wikipedia_Death_Penalty
Wikipedia_deletion
Wikipedia_disclaimers
Wikipedia_dispute_resolution
Wikipedia_does_not_give_legal_advice
Wikipedia_does_not_give_medical_advice
Wikipedia_downloads
Wikipedia_duplicate_articles
Wikipedia_Duplicate_pages
Wikipedia_DVD
Wikipedia_DVD
Wikipedia_DVD
Wikipedia_DVD
Wikipedia_DVD/Temp
Wikipedia_DVD/Temp
Wikipedia_DVD/Temp
Wikipedia_Embassy
Wikipedia_Energy_Directory_nosen_icon_hj85.jpg
Wikipedia_Energy_Directory_nosen_icon_hj85.jpg
Wikipedia_Entries_Alphabetical_Order
Wikipedia_essays
Wikipedia_Etiquette
Wikipedia_etiquette
Wikipedia_Fan
Wikipedia_fan_page
Wikipedia_fan_page
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_feature
Wikipedia_featured_articles
Wikipedia_featured_article_candidates
Wikipedia_featured_article_candidates_(contested)
Wikipedia_featured_article_removal_candidates
Wikipedia_featured_content
Wikipedia_featured_lists
Wikipedia_featured_list_candidates
Wikipedia_featured_list_candidates_(contested)
Wikipedia_featured_pictures
Wikipedia_featured_picture_candidates
Wikipedia_feature_request
Wikipedia_feature_requests
Wikipedia_fork
Wikipedia_Foundation
Wikipedia_functionaries
Wikipedia_game
Wikipedia_games
Wikipedia_goings_on
Wikipedia_gremlins
Wikipedia_gremlins
Wikipedia_guide
Wikipedia_guide
Wikipedia_guide
Wikipedia_guidelines
Wikipedia_guidelines
Wikipedia_hater
Wikipedia_Help
Wikipedia_help
Wikipedia_help_desk
Wikipedia_help_desk
Wikipedia_help_forums
Wikipedia_history
Wikipedia_History_standards
Wikipedia_History_standards
Wikipedia_Holidays
Wikipedia_Holidays
Wikipedia_how-to
Wikipedia_humor
Wikipedia_IFD
Wikipedia_illustrations
Wikipedia_image.JPG
Wikipedia_images
Wikipedia_images_by_topic
Wikipedia_images_by_type
Wikipedia_image_galleries
Wikipedia_image_galleries
Wikipedia_image_galleries_permissions
Wikipedia_image_help
Wikipedia_in_academia
Wikipedia_in_academic_studies
Wikipedia_in_academic_studies
Wikipedia_in_academic_studies
Wikipedia_in_academic_study
Wikipedia_in_blogs
Wikipedia_in_blogs
Wikipedia_in_books
Wikipedia_in_press_releases
Wikipedia_in_scientific_studies
Wikipedia_in_scientific_study
Wikipedia_in_the_media
Wikipedia_in_the_media
Wikipedia_in_the_media
Wikipedia_in_the_media
Wikipedia_in_the_news
Wikipedia_in_the_news
Wikipedia_in_the_press
Wikipedia_in_the_press
Wikipedia_IRC_Feed.JPG
Wikipedia_is
Wikipedia_isn't
Wikipedia_isnt
Wikipedia_is_Anarchism
Wikipedia_is_Anarchism
Wikipedia_is_Anarchism!
Wikipedia_is_Anarchism!
Wikipedia_is_an_MMORPG
Wikipedia_is_an_MMORPG
WIKIPEDIA_IS_COMMUNISM
WIKIPEDIA_IS_COMMUNISM
Wikipedia_Is_Communism
Wikipedia_Is_Communism
Wikipedia_is_Communism
Wikipedia_is_Communism
Wikipedia_is_Communism
Wikipedia_is_communism
Wikipedia_Is_Communism!
Wikipedia_Is_Communism!
Wikipedia_is_Communism!
Wikipedia_is_Communism!
Wikipedia_is_communism!
Wikipedia_is_communism!
Wikipedia_is_Democracy!
Wikipedia_is_Democracy!
Wikipedia_is_Fun
Wikipedia_is_Marxism
WIKIPEDIA_IS_MARXISM_SO_GET_THE_FUCK_OUTTA_HERE_DAMMIT
Wikipedia_is_Nazism
Wikipedia_is_Nazism
Wikipedia_is_not
Wikipedia_is_not
Wikipedia_is_not_an_advertisement_board
Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball
Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy
Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Wikipedia_is_not_a_mud_wrestling_pit
Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Wikipedia_is_not_a_usage_guide
Wikipedia_is_not_a_vanity_press
Wikipedia_is_not_a_vanity_press
Wikipedia_is_not_a_vanity_press
Wikipedia_is_not_a_vanity_press
Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory
Wikipedia_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_itself
Wikipedia_jimmy_wales_ars_electronica.jpg
Wikipedia_kerry.jpg
Wikipedia_logo_-_distorted_after_scrolling_page.JPG
Wikipedia_logs
Wikipedia_Lookup_Browser_Button
Wikipedia_Look_Browser_Button
Wikipedia_Look_Browser_Button
Wikipedia_Loves_Trolls
Wikipedia_mailing_list
Wikipedia_Maintenance
Wikipedia_maintenance
Wikipedia_maintenance
Wikipedia_maintenance
Wikipedia_maintenance
Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style
Wikipedia_mediation
Wikipedia_Mediawiki_custom_messages
Wikipedia_medicine_standards
Wikipedia_medicine_standards
Wikipedia_meta-pages
Wikipedia_meta_pages
Wikipedia_Milestone_satistics
Wikipedia_Militia
Wikipedia_mirror
Wikipedia_mirror
Wikipedia_mirrors
Wikipedia_missing_topics
Wikipedia_mouse_mat.jpg
Wikipedia_mug.jpg
Wikipedia_multilingual_coordination
Wikipedia_namespace
Wikipedia_naming_convention
Wikipedia_naming_conventions
Wikipedia_naming_conventions
Wikipedia_naming_convention_on_anglicization
Wikipedia_NEWS
Wikipedia_NEWS
Wikipedia_NEWS
Wikipedia_news
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_13_16_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_13_16_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_13_19_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_13_19_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_20_25_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_20_25_2001
Wikipedia_new_articles
Wikipedia_No_personal_attacks.ogg
Wikipedia_official_policy
Wikipedia_official_policy
Wikipedia_OmniMusica
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_articles
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_candidates
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues_-_comprehensivity
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues_-_neutrality
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues_-_referencing
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues_-_style
Wikipedia_on_TV_and_Radio
Wikipedia_on_TV_and_radio
Wikipedia_on_TV_and_radio
Wikipedia_pages_for_Wikimedia_projects
Wikipedia_Penn_Shield.jpg
Wikipedia_PHP_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_alt_main_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_main_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_mysql_sql_ddl
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_upload_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_wiki_stylesheet
Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines
Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy/Blocked_IPs
Wikipedia_policy/Foul_Language
Wikipedia_policy/General_discussion
Wikipedia_policy/Layout_recommendations
Wikipedia_policy/Pages_which_have_been_permanently_deleted
Wikipedia_policy_on_charts
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_articles
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
Wikipedia_press_release_1
Wikipedia_press_release_1
Wikipedia_press_release_1
Wikipedia_probation
Wikipedia_Prodject:Countries_Anthems
Wikipedia_Projects
Wikipedia_proposals
Wikipedia_Quality_Survey
Wikipedia_Quality_Survey
Wikipedia_quote_of_the_day
Wikipedia_real-world
Wikipedia_recent_additions
Wikipedia_refactor
Wikipedia_Reference_Desk_archive
Wikipedia_reference_desk_archive
Wikipedia_referrers
Wikipedia_rejected_policies
Wikipedia_rejected_policies
Wikipedia_requested_articles
Wikipedia_requested_articles
Wikipedia_requested_images
Wikipedia_requested_images
Wikipedia_requests
Wikipedia_resources_for_researchers
Wikipedia_Rich_List
Wikipedia_Sandbot
Wikipedia_Sandbox
Wikipedia_Sandbox
Wikipedia_scratchpad
Wikipedia_Searching
Wikipedia_semi-policy
Wikipedia_serious_cleanup
Wikipedia_Signpost
Wikipedia_Signpost
Wikipedia_Signpost
Wikipedia_Signpost/100
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/AMA_election
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/AMA_election
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Credibility
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Credibility
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Fundraiser
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Instapundit
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Portal
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Portal
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/QuakeAID
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/QuakeAID
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Speedy_deletion
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Top_100
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Top_100
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Upgrade
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Celebrities
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Country_infoboxes
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Fvw
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/In_the_media
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Server_order
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Mediation_Committee
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/News_and_notes
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Nofollow_tag
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Nofollow_tag
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Performance_improvements
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Rave_Awards
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Speedy_deletion_expanded
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Taiwan_Encyclopedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Veja
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Veja
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Block_wars
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Heavy_metal_umlaut
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/New_features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Policy_proposals
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Tangshan_earthquake
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Tim_Starling
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Tim_Starling
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Webcred_conference
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/500_featured_articles
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Advocacy_groups
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Encarta
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Main_page_protection
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Proxies
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Three-revert_rule
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Article_hoax
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Budget_and_contract
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Google_hosting
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Music_recordings
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Wikipedia_portal_redesign
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Wikiportals
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Feature_storm
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Fundraising_drive
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Gdansk_or_Danzig
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Googlepedia_column
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Harvard_coverage
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/NPR
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Wired_feature
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28/Criticism_and_reaction
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28/Power_outage
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28/Vertical_search
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Block_war_and_desysoping
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/FOSDEM
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Fundraiser_ended
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Gdansk_or_Danzig
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/NY_Times_archive
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/NY_Times_archive
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Peer_review_and_FAC
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Peer_review_and_FAC
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Wikipedia_citations
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Wikipedia_citations
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Yahoo_anniversary
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Dispute_resolution_changes
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Guanaco_adminship
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Page_moves
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Page_moves
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Power_outage_redux
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Recycling_Troll
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Best_or_worst
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/CC-Wiki_license
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Conference_and_expo
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Database_disk_space
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Half-million_articles
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Half-million_articles
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Quarto
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Top_admin_leaves
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/London_meetup
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/London_meetup
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/MediaWiki_progress
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/Prosecution_and_de-adminship
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/Return_of_stats
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/Wikiwax_index
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/April_Fool's_Day
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/April_Fool's_Day
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Arbitration_policy_revote
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Plagiarism_and_comedy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Plagiarism_and_comedy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Proxy_list
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Proxy_list
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Syntax_standardization
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Dot-org_boom
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/DVD_releases
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/DVD_releases
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Encarta_editing
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Encarta_editing
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Privacy_policy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Speed_feature
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Yahoo_support
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Andrea_Dworkin_death
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Andrea_Dworkin_death
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Encarta_elaborates
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Lucene_search
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Spoken_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Tax_exempt_status
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Template_standardisation
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Papal_scoop
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/The_Sanger_memoirs
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-28
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Articles_and_features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Commons_donation
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Directmedia_Publishing_releases_fine_art_images_under_the_GFDL
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Image_database_donated_to_Commons
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Reader_Portals
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Reader_Portals
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Wikimedia_elections
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Wikipedia_in_print
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Wiki_press
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/Brockhaus_plagiarism_suspected
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/Meetings_and_events
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Board_meeting
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Image_uploading
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/MediaWiki_1.5
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Other_news_sources
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Skanwiki_proposal
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Dating_system
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Dating_system
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/German_scandal
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Librarians_project
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Librarians_project
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Noncommercial_images
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Proceedings_of_Wikitech-l
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Proceedings_of_Wikitech-l
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Radio_show
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Radio_show
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Traffic_growth
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Wikijunior_needs_you!
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Foundation_official_positions
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Free_software_trophy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Free_software_trophy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Laotian_Rock_Rat
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Substubs_and_templates
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Vandal_fighter
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Wikimedia_Board_election
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/WikiPrudence
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Content_arbitration
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Global_downtime
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Global_downtime
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Lists_and_rankings
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Lists_and_rankings
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Password_security
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Wales_meets_Brockhaus
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Wales_meets_Brockhaus
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Apple_and_reputations
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/ESA_meeting
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Features,_removal,_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Features,_removal,_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/New_syntax_draft
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Server_status
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/100_times_100
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Podcasting_problems
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Wikimedia_elections
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Wikimedia_elections
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Wikitorials_and_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/About
Wikipedia_Signpost/AC
Wikipedia_Signpost/AC
Wikipedia_Signpost/AMA
Wikipedia_Signpost/AMA
Wikipedia_Signpost/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives
Wikipedia_Signpost/Baou
Wikipedia_Signpost/Baou
Wikipedia_Signpost/Celebrities
Wikipedia_Signpost/Country_infoboxes
Wikipedia_Signpost/CSD
Wikipedia_Signpost/FAC
Wikipedia_Signpost/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/Features_and_layout
Wikipedia_Signpost/Feedback
Wikipedia_Signpost/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/FtE
Wikipedia_Signpost/FtE
Wikipedia_Signpost/Fvw
Wikipedia_Signpost/General_discussion
Wikipedia_Signpost/Insta
Wikipedia_Signpost/In_the_media
Wikipedia_Signpost/LS
Wikipedia_Signpost/LS
Wikipedia_Signpost/Mediation_Committee
Wikipedia_Signpost/MP
Wikipedia_Signpost/MP
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/April_25
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/May_2
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/May_9
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Template_standardisation
Wikipedia_Signpost/News_and_notes
Wikipedia_Signpost/Nofollow_tag
Wikipedia_Signpost/Nofollow_tag
Wikipedia_Signpost/Performance_improvements
Wikipedia_Signpost/Rave_Awards
Wikipedia_Signpost/RC
Wikipedia_Signpost/Server_order
Wikipedia_Signpost/Speedy_deletion_expanded
Wikipedia_Signpost/Suggestions
Wikipedia_Signpost/Suggestions
Wikipedia_Signpost/Taiwan_Encyclopedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/TC
Wikipedia_Signpost/Veja
Wikipedia_Signpost/Veja
Wikipedia_Signpost/WF
Wikipedia_Signpost/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost_archives
WIkipedia_Software
Wikipedia_Software
Wikipedia_software
Wikipedia_sources
Wikipedia_spoken_articles
Wikipedia_Spoken_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_statistics
Wikipedia_statistics
Wikipedia_statistics
Wikipedia_statistics/Referrers
Wikipedia_statistics/Size_of_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_statistics/What_Google_likes
Wikipedia_Status
Wikipedia_status
Wikipedia_structures.jpg
Wikipedia_structures_edited.jpg
Wikipedia_stubs
Wikipedia_style_and_how-to
Wikipedia_style_and_how-to
Wikipedia_style_guidelines
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons/Evaluation
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons/Evaluation
Wikipedia_Sucks
Wikipedia_syntax_and_templates.TCL
Wikipedia_teamwork
Wikipedia_teamwork
Wikipedia_templates
Wikipedia_thong.jpg
Wikipedia_thong.jpg
Wikipedia_thumbs_down.jpg
Wikipedia_traffic
Wikipedia_translation
Wikipedia_Tree_of_Life/Update_of_the_Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group
Wikipedia_Tree_of_Life/Update_of_the_Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_2
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_2
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_3
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_3
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_4
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_4
Wikipedia_tutorial
Wikipedia_tutorial
Wikipedia_tutorial
Wikipedia_UK_CotW_Nominees
Wikipedia_unofficial_policy
Wikipedia_usage
Wikipedia_Users
Wikipedia_user_dma.jpg
Wikipedia_Utilities
Wikipedia_utilities
Wikipedia_utilities
Wikipedia_utilities/Controversial_subjects
Wikipedia_utilities/Controversial_subjects_Talk
Wikipedia_utilities/Deleted_page_titles
Wikipedia_utilities/Navigation_links
Wikipedia_utilities/Old_Page_titles_to_be_deleted_talk
Wikipedia_utilities/Old_Page_titles_to_be_deleted_talk
Wikipedia_utilities/Pages_needing_attention
Wikipedia_utilities/Pages_to_be_rewritten_or_deleted
Wikipedia_utilities/Page_titles_to_be_deleted
Wikipedia_utilities/Page_titles_to_be_deleted
Wikipedia_utilities/Page_titles_to_be_deleted_Talk
Wikipedia_utilities/Page_titles_which_have_been_deleted
Wikipedia_utilities/Personal_subpages_to_be_deleted
Wikipedia_vandal
Wikipedia_vandalism
Wikipedia_vandalism_archive
Wikipedia_Village_Pump
Wikipedia_Volunteer_Fire_Department
Wikipedia_weeding
WIKIPEDIA
Please change your username. It will be confusing to others if you use WIKIPEDIA as a username. See Wikipedia:Changing username. User:Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) *No. User:WIKIPEDIA 23:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) **If you refuse, the community may force you to change. I urge you to reconsider. User:Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) **I can't speak for others, but if there will be a vote on whether or not to ban you based on your username, I will vote in favour. — User:Timwi 23:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) **As will I. User:Raul654 23:55, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) **Please, change! Let's make this easy on everyone involved! Me, you, my little sister Tille, your grandma Rose, the whole Wikipedia community. :) - User:Fennec 23:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) **Me, three. User:Jengod 23:58, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) ***No, you four. :) - User:Fennec 00:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) **5 User:Bcorr|User talk:Bcorr 00:03, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) **I think this is exactly the kind of attention that WIKIPEDIA wants. --User:Alex S 00:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Hephaestos banned this account, rightly, for trolling. Case closed. -- User:Finlay McWalter | User talk:Finlay McWalter 00:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA
#REDIRECT Wikipedia
WikiPedia
#REDIRECT Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 1 Topics: FAQ, International Wikipedias, Wikipedia on CDROM, Wikipedia should be in the article namespace (discussion in March 2002), Script for automatically linking dates, Searching problem, Pornographic images...
Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 2 Topics: Why have articles about movies and tv shows?, Can we describe Wikipedia with a neutral point of view?, Why new software?, Stallman, Unnecessary and harmful deletions? (August 2003), Hardware, Major figures in history of encyclopedias not included.
Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 3 Topics: Will you include "Photography" , perhaps in Arts and Culture?, Internet-Encyclopedia, Comparison graph, Is Wikipedia really a "free content" encyclopedia?, VfD header, new subject, Which Razi?, Excited about Wikipedia but will it last?, hi really nice website^^, First paragraph
Talk:Wikipedia/Heirarchical Linking System proposal (made in March 2004)
Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 4 ---- You seriously need to update this to talk about how wikipedia actually works. things like administrators, deletions, etc. :You can find that info over at Wikipedia:Community Portal (linked from the first paragraph of the main page). User:Dori | User talk:Dori 23:45, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) :The first paragraph no longer contains any obvious link to the Community Portal. Would it be appropriate to add a "Wikipedia Governance" section that briefly describes various roles (i.e. volunteer developers, stewards, bureaucrats, administrators, sysops, Jimbo), and also has a link to the Community Portal? :Also, it would be nice if this main article better described the architecture of Wikipedia, such as the different groups or "namespaces" of content like articles and community pages. At a minimum, it should explain the difference between this article and the Wikipedia:introduction, because the distinction between the two makes no obvious sense to people who are not familiar with both. I suspect that the people who have done most of the editing of this article are so familiar with Wikipedia that it is difficult for them to look at it from a new person's point of view. User:JonathanFreed 20:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC) Response: This is an encyclopedia. It contain the history and legacy of Wikipedia, which is enough for a article on itself. Everything you want is on other pages. ---- ==Self-Reference== :''If you wish to become a Wikipedia contributor, please take a look at the Wikipedia:Introduction''. Isn't this a Wikipedia:Avoid self-references? User:Chocolateboy 19:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) :No. Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Introduction are two different articles. --User:Spug 00:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) That's not what I meant (the internal link to the Wikipedia namespace has since been moved to the Wikipedia#External links section) by self-ref. See Talk:Wikipedia#Links outside the main namespace and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references :-) User:Chocolateboy 12:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Main page image and statistics == Perhaps the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_mainpage_of.PNG screenshot of the main page] should be updated to reflect the (slightly changed) new layout? --User:Spug 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Currently the page sais 'Wikipedia contains approximately 1.3 million articles, over 480,000 of which are in its English language edition'. This will get out of date relatively fast, unless these numbers get frequently updated. Can't we insert automatically the number of articlas, like on the front page? -- Adhemar : Idem for the Language editions table -- Adhemar : Using : [ [Special:Statistics|] ] : (giving Special:Statistics) for the number of English articles, and something similar for the entire amount of articles, perhaps? -- Adhemar ==Odd quote== :"Fortunately, most of us are willing to take a definite stand against vandalism ... and to get rid of it instantly." Am I the only one who thinks the above quote (by Larry Sanger) doesn't say much? I mean, is there anyone who would take a stand ''for'' vandalism (except the vandals), or anyone who would rather wait a few days before getting rid of it? User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 11:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Indeed. That is an odd quote.== A good odd quote indeed. [http://www.just-wiki-it.com/ Just wiki it.] == External links == An anonymous user has changed "External links" to "Internal links" a couple of times. That creates problems for mirrors and dead-tree versions of course, especially since this article makes an excellent description of Wikipedia which can be used by librarians, newsletters, etc. However the anon has a point, most of the links do link back to Wikipedia, so "External links" doesn't seem right either. What about changing it to the alternate "Related links"? I think we can make an exception to the standard here. User:Rhobite 04:42, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) :For internal links, our normal standard would be "See also". Is there a reason that wouldn't work here? User:JamesMLane 05:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, it's a problem of context. This article is written as an article about Wikipedia, and it should be readable independently from the actual website. Wikilinks are nice hypertext features but they won't be available in standalone copies of articles, some mirrors, and paper versions. Since the article's subject is Wikipedia, it makes sense to link to relevant pages on Wikipedia (including Wikipedia: space articles which would otherwise break the self-reference policy). These links work best as external links. It can be a little confusing, but keeping these links as external links enforces the "fourth wall" we have between encyclopedia and Wikipedia. User:Rhobite 06:09, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) :Wikipedia:Village pump#External links must die. "Further reading" is more accurate, and not self-referential. User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 10:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Wikipedia addiction not mentioned == It is not necessarily a bad thing, but one can get addicted to wikipedia, or some sort of over-navegation, even leaving the rest of the internet unattended, or even my girl or curricular study. For sure its a weak time in my life and maybe wikipedia time is some best part of it. Not a dead end addiction for me. I do find a great ease when flipped to a world of ilustrated things. I am sure there is some knowledge out there about examples of syndorome-sort of extreem atachment and use of this great bit of informatic communication and people. If it is of some importance of it maybe there should be some mention of it. Best regards, Pablo (from Spain) ==Wikipedia is the main introduction page to Wikipedia== Currently, new users' introduction to what Wikipedia is is limited to 2 lines of description on the main page, and if they want more information they click on the Wikipedia link. The policy on this page should take into account that this page is thus not just an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, but is the main introduction & public relations page. I'm not sure why it was removed that many news sources have featured positive profiles of Wikipedia. --User:Nectarflowed 13:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I removed the "Wikipedia has received plaudits from" line that duplicated in the introduction and awards from the intro. If there's a better way I don't mind of course, but I don't think the justification can be that this is our "public relations page", which would violate NPOV. User:119 19:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::119- Thanks for pointing that out. By 'public relations' I mean an interface that presents introductory information to the public. In this sense, I think it's important to the introductory understanding of Wikipedia that this page provides to note the reviews Wikipedia gets from prominent news sources, as well as the IBM study. However, I agree with what you point out, that "plaudits" would be a questionable phrasing in terms of NPOV.User:Nectarflowed 20:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) : Hmm. I don't think we should alter our normal encyclopedic approach just because the article happens to be linked to from the Main Page. That's really the wrong approach: our policies should be the same as everwhere else in the main article space. If we have a great need to treat this page differently, then we should not use ''this'' page for that purpose, but direct the user to a different page from the Main Page. User:Matt Crypto 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::If a different page is required (though I disagree), it should probably be Wikipedia:About. User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 01:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::What about Wikipedia:Wikipedia? - User:Ta bu shi da yu 01:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Suggestion for image to add== Screenshot of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia, as an example of how a Wikipedia article might look ;-) - User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 19:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Wouldn't that be a little like looking at a mirror through a mirror? :) — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 20:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Remember that Wikipedia content gets "syndicated". The article on Wikipedia may be read on some other site or even in another medium entirely. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 04:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==h3== Stevietheman has changed the categories in External links from ; to h3 with no edit summary. Why? I think there is no improvement in functionality or presentation to have a h3 above every two or three links. It is completely out of proportion and clutters the table of contents. User:119 :Because that's the normal way it's done. And it's look just fine to me. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Contrib">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 01:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- "restore Lisbon, as it's an important example regarding the need to cite sources" - SlimVirgin :Wikipedia is not for editors, it is for the wider public. Do you have another reason to keep it? User:119 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Power Failure == Is it just me, or is there no mention of Monday's power failure anywhere on this page or any page? Am I missing something? :If we mentioned every time something went wrong with the site, the article would be a mile long. If you're looking for information instead of just wanting it in this article, see m:February 2005 server crash. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 04:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Extremely impressed by the references == I have to say that am extremely impressed that this article is referenced, and the method of doing so. I'll have to figure out how its done, but it looks very professional and something I believe that should be done for all Wikipedia Articles. Increasingly websites with articles like [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cycloid.html cycloid] also have references. I think it is increasingly becoming so that any piece of information, from what ever source, needs to be referenced as the public becomes more skepticle of the information it consumes. - anon :A Wikiproject called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check Fact and Reference Check] exists to help reference all the facts within Wikipedia. If anyone is interested please come and take a look :). --User:ShaunMacPherson 23:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) :It took us ages to get this done... all our current articles that people would like to be featured must be referenced in such a way! - User:Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- Strange, I just reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=10681424 this diff] in which an anon changed 2003 to 2009, and the original is not on history. User:119 21:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- ==Correction times in the vandalism section== The mix of days and minutes in the "vandalism" section looked bizarre to me. I suspected vandalism and spent ten minutes trying to find the first version of these numbers without success. Could someone who understands them please check that they are correct, and if they are, please explain what more of the terms mean and why the differences of magnitude are so vast? User:Pcpcpc 01:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I haven't seen that section modified yet; it was written by me and its source cited as "Viegas, Wattenberg, and Dave (2004)" which is available under References for checking. The discrepancy in days/minutes is due to the differences between mean and median. User:119 02:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::No it isn't. It is obviously wildly wrong and the reference doesn't help. How did it get featured article with this in it? I am going to delete it in the hope it will prompt a correction. User:Gillian Tipson 13:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Page 579. Check it. This is infuriating: I clearly cite a source ''which contains the numbers verbatim'', and you delete it as "wildly wrong"?! User:119 15:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Revision - Type - Number - Mean time - Median time
All content - 618,502 - 22.3 days - 90.4 minutes
Mass delete - (MD) - 3,574 - 7.7 days - 2.8 minutes
MD obscene - 47 - 1.8 days - 1.7 minutes
Again, that is page 579 of Fernanda B. Viegas, Martin Wattenberg, and Kushal Dave, "[http://web.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with ''history flow'' Visualizations]", CHI 2004 April 24-29 2004. It has been available for fact checking as long as this information was up. User:119 15:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :Look at the mass delete figures. 7.7 days is 3,960 times greater than 2.8 minutes. What on earth is one supposed to make of that? Are we to believe that half of the events were corrected in 2.8 minutes or less, but the other half typically took more than a fortnight? Do you find that sufficiently probable that no comment is needed? These numbers are not useful without a thorough explanation, which you have made no attempt to provide. They simultaneously say that Wikipedia is correctly really quickly and that it is corrected really slowly. The former fits the context and the latter does not. Perhaps you have a high level understanding of statistics and can explain it all (though you are yet to demonstrate any evidence of this), but this is the general article about Wikipedia, and it should be clearer than it is. 03:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :I see now that you are criticising the reference itself and not the summary of it. It has been accurately presented, yes? Neutral point of view is to do just that, and it is certainly ''not'' in accordance with the policy to delete material you personally find dubious. Making your own argument against it would fall under no original research. It's there, and it's an accurate, neutral summary of their article--let the reader decide. User:119 04:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::I think this paragraph should probably be explained a bit better. The mean vs. median difference means that most of these "mass delete" changes are reverted quickly, but a few instances remain for a very long time. I'm not calling them vandalism because I'm not convinced that the "mass delete" category is sound. If someone posts 500KB of nonsense to a small page which I then revert, I believe my revert would get included as a "mass delete". Maybe I read the article wrong. User:Rhobite 04:20, May 12, 2005 (UTC) ::I should add that those mean and median statistics are easily achievable. For the "mass delete obscene" category, n = 47. Half of the articles in that data set are reverted in under 1.7 minutes, but all it takes is one outlier, which has stayed vandalized for a couple months, to bring the mean revert time up to 1.8 days. Unfortunately we don't have any more information about their sample data but I'm willing to bet that even their 80th-90th percentile is still in the minutes range. Statistically this is not as impossible as you're making it sound Gillian. Still, I think the paragraph should be rephrased. User:Rhobite 04:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC) :::Agree, and I think we should keep in mind that many readers have very little experience with statistics, so such counter-intuitive results may require some explanation.--User:Nectarflowed User_talk:Nectarflowed 05:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I take it then that there are three people in favor of including this, and one against? It is still out as I write. User:119 15:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Yes, I think it should be included but rephrased. User:Rhobite 15:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC) ==more criticism== NOTE: As I have withdraw my adition I include it here so that the rest of the users can make informed suggestions--User:LexCorp 08:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :It has also been noted that wikipedia can easily serve as a propaganda dissemination tool for well organised and determined groups who want to push a politically or ideologically motivated agenda. The tactics that these groups employ is to slowly erode the content of opposed articles by invoking the NPOV policy so that little by little they are able to modify the article being attacked. This generally results in the generation of enough doubt about the correctness of the topic of the article in the mind of visiting users so that they follow the provided alternative POV links supplied. These links normally point to a web of wikipedia articles consisting of large numbers of subtle neologism with lot of external links to material supporting their content. These webs of articles are no more than a repository of the group propaganda, which normally provide the information the group wants to disseminate in a POV fashion. The articles that belong to these webs are fanatically defended from alteration by members of the group employing the tactic. The group manages to successfully defend the articles POV due to the fact that the articles are neologisms which are supported by vast information resources from outside wikipedia and by invoking the NPOV policy to argue that any modification is ofensive to them and thus POV. Of course these external resources are controlled by the group and are neither NPOV nor the view of the majority of people. An excellent example of such groups is the Creationist (particularly but not exclusively the Young Earth Creationist) and their persistent attacks on articles describing science, science methodology and philosophy, evolution, geology and any other subject that contradicts their view. Creation science, flood geology, creation bilology and creation anthropology are some of the neologism they use. Wikipedia answer to this criticism is that, even when confronted by such organised groups, the underlying assumption that contributing user are able to maintain the NPOV of the content of wikipedia in the long run is still valid. Critics argue that such views can not be held rationally and that many good contributors of wikipedia leave the project frustrated that the policies of wikipedia or the way they are implemented do not help at all when faced with such tactics as the one described above. So because I learned something through me being involved in a dispute.Then I can't point out a valid criticism of wikipedia in the section criticism in the wikipedia article. That is also a very strange NPOV policy concept you got there. --User:LexCorp 07:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) If you think the way it is worded or phrased is POV then try to make ammends and not just delete it into oblivion.--User:LexCorp 07:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Your addition is both POV and original research; I do not think it should be in the article. User:Matt Crypto 07:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::I guess the point of criticism is to be POV in order to balance articles and sections of articles with other POV in them. Thus wikipedia policy allows for the inclusion of various POV to make an article NPOV. So it will be strange indeed if the criticism was not skew toward a POV. Mainly because that is what criticisms are a POV stament related to another statement. As for original research. I have my doubts as it is an opinion that at least another user shares with me. and I am quite sure there must be thousands who feel the same. ::What I don't understand is why aren't people, instead of reverting the part I included, trying to iron it out so that the criticism comes across the article but any misgivings as to its POV disappear. My inability to convey a criticism should not be a barrier. I am finding, more and more, that instead of this being the apparent warm receiving community of users/helpers is becaming a segregated stronghold of articles in which any serious edition suggestion is answer with a rudeness which frankly puts off anyone from contributing.--User:LexCorp 07:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::I don't see any part of your addition that can be saved. You're taking a current dispute, which you're involved in yourself, and casting it as a flaw of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This is your opinion, it doesn't belong in this article. We have to be especially careful when editing this article, because most of us are very attached to the topic. We have to be careful about praising Wikipedia, but we also have to be careful about letting current edit wars spill across the "wall" into this article. As Matt Crypto said, your addition is original research. It's an essay about a perceived failing of the NPOV policy. You're not the first person to make these claims, but they are already presented in Criticism of Wikipedia. User:Rhobite 07:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::So if I am not the first person to make this claims I guess it is not original research after all. I do understand your point about sensibility with the wikipedia. It is because I also love wikipedia and what it represent(free information unbias) that I point out a glaring flaw that percludes that objetive from been real. I have read the Criticism of Wikipedia and I am not happy as to how it describes the phenomenon I am trying to convey as it asumes that there is no organisation between those persistem users. Will it be ok to move my addition to that article stating that some users feel that what I describe is ocurring or at least they feel it is ocurring.--User:LexCorp 08:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::No, it is still original research. There is no method of attributing your claims, unless we should try to smoothly transition from citations of Britannica editors and academic studies to "LexCorp says..." Together with this is of course ''noteworthiness''. See Wikipedia:No original research. User:119 08:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::so how did this get into the article Criticism of Wikipedia, ::::::''Flame wars'' ::::::''Some people who are familiar with interactions between individuals on Wikipedia and UseNet predict that'' ::::::''”Wikipedia is going to end up like Usenet — just a bunch of flame wars.”'' ::::::''Response: This is a bit more of a problem, but it is dealt with fairly handily by the social mores of Wikipedia, aka Wikiquette.'' ::::::''Usenet lacks at least two features that are absolutely essential to Wikipedia's success: (1) on Usenet, you can't edit other people's work, while we can here on Wikipedia, thereby encouraging creative and collegial collaboration; or more strongly, on Wikipedia, there's no such thing as "other people's work", because there's no ownership of information; (2) Unlike Wikipedia, Usenet does not have the possibility of enforcing community-agreed standards. Moreover, Usenet is a debate forum. Wikipedia is, very self-consciously, an encyclopedia project! This provides at least some agreement on What Wikipedia is not.'' ::::::''Disputes become tedious battles of persistence'' ::::::''Several contributors have complained that editing Wikipedia is very tedious in case of conflicts and that fanatic contributors with idionsyncractic, non-mainstream, non-scientific belief systems can push their point of view because nobody has the time and energy to fight them. Partly in response to his battles with followers of Lyndon LaRouche, one prolific, high profile contributor, Adam Carr Ph.D. (http://www.adam-carr.net/), stated in October 2004 that he would scale down his contributions to Wikipedia considerably (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam_Carr) because of, what he considers, the too open nature of Wikipedia.'' ::::::Is it not by your criteria also original research? ::::::Could I not include, ::::::''Several contributors have noted that wikipedia can easily serve as a propaganda dissemination tool for well organised.... '' ::::::or ::::::''Some people who are familiar with Wikipedia have noted that wikipedia can easily serve as a propaganda dissemination tool for well organised....'' ::::::I just don't understand your criteria for original research. --User:LexCorp 08:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::Clearly there's a difference between a short description of a common problem, and a long-winded rant against creationists. Do you really think it's neutral to say that the views of creationists are "propaganda"? That they are "attacking" Wikipedia? Should an article about Wikipedia say that creationist views "cannot be held rationally"? User:Rhobite 16:14, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::That it is a rant about creationist is your POV. Mine is that it is a legit criticism about wikipedia. So it is your believe that describing things for what they are is POV but confusing issues by neologism is more NPOV?. To say that something is rational or irational only describes that the former is argumented logically while the later is not. How can a description like that be POV? are any logic argument inerently POV? ::::::::Again if you think it is too long and a rant. Why not make suggestiong to condansete it and improve it?--User:LexCorp 16:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::This is pointless, we're going around in circles. As I said before, I don't see any portion of your essay which can be saved or condensed into something usable. User:Rhobite 18:27, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::And what should I read from that?. That your opinion is sacrosant and mine worthless. I believe I am argumenting my points effectively and that you are not giving my neither convincing arguments to the contrary nor a satisfactory suggestion of how to include the criticism into the article Criticism of Wikipedia.--User:LexCorp 18:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::Three people have patiently explained to you why your essay is unsalvageable. You choose to ignore our explanations - so be it. I've pointed out specific examples of phrases which should never be in a Wikipedia article unattributed. I really can't explain this any more. I'm sorry, but I have to fall back on consensus here. Three people disagree with you, and nobody has spoken in favor of your essay. User:Rhobite 20:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::: There is a large population in favour of what LexCorp is suggesting, the difference is that as rational people, we gave up on trying to stablish a more reputable means of conveing facts and information in a completley unregulated medium (in our POV) like wikipedia. Most of us do publish in peer reviewed publications in the scientifict community and would rather feel we are doing something for humankind other than wasting our time with wikipedia unless it changes. Time will tell. We may be silent, but we keep an eye. User:Askewmind | (User_talk:Askewmind) 22:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==WTD's edits== I'm a bit puzzled as to why User:WTD's edits were reverted. he made the sensible point that, in fact, of course it's not possible to access the whole of human knowledge, and he referred the reader to the page history to see how open-access wordks. These were reverted by User:Rhobite without explanation, so far as I can see. Am I missing something? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 14:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Ah, I've just found comments on WTD's Talk page (he seems to think that Rhobite and I are the same person, though I'm not sure why), together with some explanation of the reverts. To be honest, though, I'm still not entirely clear what the problem is with either edit; I wonder if it could be discussed here. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 14:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::WTD added this: "The 'sum' - or totality - of human knowledge is, of course, inaccessible; 'twould, perhaps, be arrogant to think otherwise. However..." First off it's inappropriate to speculate about arrogance. That part is definitely POV. In another edit WTD added "see the history of this page" - clearly self-referential. For WTD's other point, I'm not sure if we should point out that the sum of human knowledge is inaccessible. I'm not the only person who reverted WTD. As others said in their edit summaries, this is obvious. As I mentioned on WTD's talk page, Jimbo's quote is somewhat rhetorical - I don't interpret it completely literally, and I don't think it's intended to be interpreted literally. Much like groups who are trying to "end world hunger" or politicians who want to put "a chicken in every pot", Wikipedia is never going to reach its goal. I think that's understood. If someone has criticized Wikipedia for its apparently impossible mission statement, we should cite that. If WTD's addition is merely his/her own opinion, we should not add it to the lead section. Hope this clarifies things. User:Rhobite 19:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC) :::Well, I'm not sure about the business about the sum of all knowledge (it might be unnecessary for most people, but putting it in wouldn't do any harm at least, and might make Wikipedia look less pie-in-the-sky for some literal-minded readers). The bit that I don't understand, though, is self-reference. I mean, an article on Wikipedia is already pretty damned self-referential; moreover, referring to the edit history isn't referring to the page — and if one's explaining how it all works, then referring to the page is surely an obvious way of doing it? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 19:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::Please read my comments from #External_links above - they apply here as well. Basically, this should not be treated as an article within Wikipedia; it should be treated as an article ''about'' Wikipedia. As a rule of thumb, any references which would not make sense in a paper version of this article are not acceptable. User:Rhobite 20:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC) Thanks. I'll not pretend to be completely convinced, but my concerns aren't important enough to distract us from getting on with more useful matters. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 22:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) The above raises a few interesting wee points. I had formed the impression that Wiki was truly open and editable; then I formed the impression that my contributions were being edited unreasonably; then, without realising what 'reverts' might mean, I formed the impression I'd upset a few 'fans'; then I formed the impression that 'openly editable' was, on certain pages, a misnomer. Finally, I formed the impression - wholly erroneously, perhaps - that my edits were, in effect, being censored. I say "formed the impression"; I'm ''not'' saying these impressions were accurate; and whilst I say "censored" I am not suggesting this is what was really happening; just what it felt like at the time, to me, as new here. However, I do differentiate "'twould, perhaps, be arrogant" from "It is arrrogant"; the former is not, to me anyway, POV. Also, I cannot see how ref to a ''page history'' is self-ref - I was inviting others to read the stuff. WTD 02:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) :The problem isn't that the points you have tried to make are seen as "wrong," but that ''Wikipedia editors don't make personal assertions''. I think including "twould, perhaps, be arrogant to think otherwise" would be contrary to both the "WP:NPOV" and "Wikipedia:No original research" policies. If you find noteable remarks on Wales' definition which can be attributed to their author, then that's another matter. User:119 ==Suggestions for Improvements To Wikipedia== Are there any plans to create/use a distributed approach to Wikipedia? Somthing similar to the method used by Bittorrent where users share space and bandwidth. :what User:Silsor 22:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC) :Would you like to have BitTorrent response times as well? User:Midom 22:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC) ::However, it ''might'' be useful to use BitTorrent as a way of distributing the database dumps... -- User:Karada 23:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) :No, as it's essentially impossible to do while maintaining editability. Such systems work wonders for static content. Dynamic stuff? Not so much. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 04:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) == List of language editions == Is there any reason not to include the list of language editions? This article is about an encyclopedia, and it seems very natural to include the list of major editions with the number of article in each one. Since I can't find a justification not to do so, I am going to restore this again. -- User:TakuyaMurata 22:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) :That list is badly out of date and cannot be up to date. As you said when removing a functionally identical 'currently', "this is not a newspaper article." User:119 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Lucky for us, we are now able to update the counts, as http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm is up again. While we agree that this article is not meant to be on the press, I think, as said above, it is natural to note the number of articles for each edition. -- User:TakuyaMurata 19:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ==Vandalism to the main Wikipedia pages== I usually enter Wikipedia via the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia page. What annoys me to no end is the constant problem with vandalism to the Wikipedia page. For example, quite often I have found the page almost completely deleted of content! At other times, the Wikipedia page is subject to continuing edit wars. To solve these problems I submit that the Wikipedia administrators should permanently lock the Wikipedia page. This will ensure a reliable informative guide to Wikipedia. With the present system, one can't be sure what you may find on the Wikipedia page. Leave all the other pages for open edits, but please lock the main Wikipedia user guide page. Bivariate-Correlator 1 April 2005 : This page isn't intended as a user guide; it's an encyclopedia article that happens to be on the topic of Wikipedia. User:Matt Crypto 22:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Weird criticism, lacking source== :''Wikipedia articles contain extensive cross-referencing to other articles through links. As a result, it has been criticised for being a "Google bomb" which disrupts search engine results.'' Criticized by whom? User:Fredrik | User talk:Fredrik 20:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) :That's been in for some time. I've looked for references but haven't seen anything. User:119 20:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Well the main place I've seen it discussed like this is on Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia:send in the clones but it seems to me that that may not be the best reference. Google did have to do some work to fix the problem. User:Mozzerati 21:09, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC) ==Wikipedia Merchandise== Is the Wikipedia Merchandise link, http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia, proper to include in Wikipedia? User:119 07:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) : I guess it is like licensed merchandising... in a way? -- user:zanimum ==Uncyclopedia== Worthy of note in our external links? [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page] -- user:zanimum :How about an internal link to Uncyclopedia? -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 14:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Origin of the idea== The article says, :Wales and Sanger attribute the concept of using a wiki to Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb or Portland Pattern Repository, the original wiki, though disagree regarding credit. Sanger attributes the idea to Ben Kovitz, a regular at this wiki, in January 2001.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_SangerKovitz) Wales credits Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee of Bomis who showed him the same wiki, in December 2000.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_WalesRosenfeld) Not correct. See the [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-April Sanger's memoirs] thread on Wikipedia-L and revise accordingly. :From "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia" by Sanger, and Wales' reply on the thread "Sanger's memoirs" on Wikipedia-l: ::Sanger: "I had dinner with an old Internet friend of mine, Ben Kovitz... Ben explained the idea of Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb to me." ::Wales:"In mid-December, Jeremy showed me Ward Cunningham's wiki..." :How do you think it is incorrect? User:119 21:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Wikipedia is why the 'net exists! == Surely the reason that the 'net exists is so that sites like this can exist. The ideal of the sharing of knowledge for the mutual benefit of humanity in general is the ideal of the internet itself. The world wide web exists so that knowledge can be compiled in one place, so that all human knowledge can be stored for all time and made avalible for all people. This website - whatever its failings - should be praised.(discus) Adam-Casey-Philosopher :What on earth would lead you to believe that there is a reason the net exists? :User:Stevenzenith 02:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC) == We seem to be missing the article == Or am I going blind? User:Shoecream —User:Shoecream 04:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC) :It was deleted by Rdsmith4 for some unexplained reason and was subsequently restored by someone else. -- 04:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC) ::It was deleted due to page move vandalism. That someone else was probably able to move it back faster than Rdsmith. -User:Frazzydee|User talk:Frazzydee 19:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC) == Fundraising == Should we have information on how Wikipedia regularly does fundraising drives, and also the Cafe Press merchandise? - User:Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC) :The article should definitely tell how wikipedia is financed, but merchandising is superfluous IMO. --User:Elian 00:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::I think we should have it. Incidentally, if it's well-priced, I might buy some. User:harry491 User_talk:harry491 00:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC) == Oh no! == Someone has deleted everything in this article and replaced it with: "Wikipedia: The Website you are looking at." I'm from h2g2, and I shudder to think how bad this would make us look if it was one of our people playing this HHGG-style joke on y'all. Get it back if you can! I was actually looking for info on an article I was writing about user-written sites like this. :Wikipedia:Clear your cache - that vandalism was fixed already User:Ahoerstemeier 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC) I decided to add "In other words, it's what you're looking at now, if you didn't already know that", to the current page, but any similarities are purely coincedental. User:SabinFigaro 22:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)SabinFigaro ==IBM & MIT study reference== *"In a study of the page histories of Wikipedia's English-language edition, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and IBM researchers Viegas, Wattenberg, and Dave found the mean time to correct "mass delete" and "mass delete obscene" vandalism to be 7.7 days and 1.8 days, and the median times 2.8 minutes and 1.7 minutes respectively. In contrast, the average persistency of a revision marked "all content" was found to be 22.3 days, the median time 90.4 minutes." The footnote for this study links to the Meta article on Wikipedia, which doesn't mention the study.--User:Nectarflowed User_talk:Nectarflowed 19:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :The user Neutrality apparently broke it a few days ago and did not fix it, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=13500679 this revision] is still good. The link still goes to the correct footnote, the templates used will always do that, but the numbering is off now. User:119 20:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ==Italics== Should Wikipedia be italicized? While it has been changed to plain as though it were a careless mistake, the reasoning behind ''Wikipedia'' was that it is the title of an encyclopedia. User:119 20:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :I agree, the Manual of Style states that books and titles of longer works should be italicized. ''Wikipedia'' should be italicized, just as ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' is. --User:Poiuytman User talk:PoiuytmanUser:Poiuytman 00:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC) :No, it should not. Online works are never italicized. User:NeutralityUser talk:Neutrality 05:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC) ::Unless I'm missing something, the Manual of Style has no mentioning of whether the medium the media exists on (online or paper) has any bearing on whether it is italicized or not. It seems to focus more on the type of media and its breadth. Although the MoS does not specifically state that encyclopedias are italicized, they definitely qualify as "longer works", and probably fall in under "book". In my opinion, it ''shouldn't matter'' whether it's physical or electronic — Wikipedia:Cite sources treats all magazine articles, (e-)books, and encyclopedias the same, electronic or not. --User:Poiuytman User talk:PoiuytmanUser:Poiuytman 06:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC) :::When i refer to fiction of book-length published only in electronic editions (as i have done in several debates on SF works), i use italics, or an indication of them. Where is the rule that "Online works are never italicized." to be found, in the MoS or any style guide? Most online works are of a length that would not justify italics if printed, but some are long enough and ''Wikipedia'' surely is.User:DESiegel 16:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ''Wikipedia'' should be italicized just like the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', as per the MoS. User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 11:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC) *I think it should be bold-faced, blinking and surrounded by a bright red box :) Seriously though, italicized sounds appropriate. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 16:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC) *At the risk of complicating a wonderfully trivial discussion, we should perhaps distinguish ''Wikipedia'' the work from Wikipedia the organisation. I think it's the multiple meanings of the word which cause the confusion. User:Markalexander100User talk:Markalexander100 02:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) **An excellent point. Unfortunately, the line between the two may be rather vague, and I would not know where to start with differentiating them. --User:Poiuytman User talk:PoiuytmanUser:Poiuytman 11:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***I would use italic when refering to the articles signly or collectively, but not when refering to the administative structure, the people who run it, the legal entity, or the community of editors and others that has grown up. if in doubt, i wluld italicize. Note that this mostly refers to uses in articles themselves. On talk pages, people are often less formal and careful with their formatting anyway. User:DESiegel 16:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ****I oppose the use of italics in article titles. Italic fonts are less legible than non-italic fonts so they should be used sparingly. Italics can be useful as a contrast to highlight something in the middle of text. A title needs no contrast. User:Bobblewik User talk:Bobblewik 17:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) When referring to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, we should use the same style as for other encyclopaedias. When referring to Wikipedia as a website or an online community, we should use the same style as for other websites and online communities. Or, to put it another way, whether italics should be used or not depends on context, User:Jguk 08:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) == A nonte from an anon == wikipedia is a very awesome resource but the fact that people can change whatever they want in it whenever thery want (kind f like i've been doing for about the last 15 minutes) makes it a little less dependable. (unsigned comment posted by . * You may have noticed by now that your edits have been examined and removed. That anybody can add whatever they want, anybody else can fact check it. Those who chronically vandalize or intentionally add "bad" data will also quickly find themselves blocked from editing. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 15:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC) ==Innacuracy in wikipedia and paper Encyclopedias== There is a substancial problem in this issue in the article. Wikipedia can have innacuracy problems, but when the subject is foreign countries is more reliable than English language paper Encyclopedias. When I read Portuguese-related info on paper Encyclopedia in English it is FULL of innacuracies, at least in here there are several people that is from various countries and correct many innacuracies that are found in paper enc. ~just my 2 cents. -User:PedroPVZ 19:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC) == Health Warning Required == There really needs to be a clearer statement in this article and on the main page of the limitation of the Wikipedia. Not only is it open to the abuse of the well intentioned it is subject to subtle revision by special interest groups. Wikipedia potentially undermines the basis of public consensus building. It is being accepted as an authority when there is no basis for that acceptance. In short, without wishing to be alarmist (but being alarmed), I see Wikipedia as socially damaging and dangerous. A clearer and more prominent statement of the issue *on all pages* is required in my view. User:Stevenzenith 20:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC) :There has been much discussion about this in the past. There is a link to the general disclaimers on each page, so there is no need to have different disclaimers for each page otherwise. --User:Clawed 20:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC) ::The disclaimers are not sufficiently prominent. The public health warning I think appropriate would be prominantly displayed at the head of each page - in large bold and RED letters. ::User:Stevenzenith 02:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC) :This has been discussed before and rejected. This is also the absolute wrong place to discuss this, being as this page is for discussing ''only'' this article. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 06:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC) == Proposal:Add link to WP:NOT == We should add a link somewhere on this page to what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. I think it is important to show new users not only what WP is but what WP is not. :This page isn't meant to be an introduction to wikipedia for wikipedia users, this is an article about the entity wikipedia (a subtle distinction). It might well be read by someone not using wikipedia at all, who is instead using some services that uses content part of which originated on wikipedia. We're GFDL after all. (avoid self references) --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 06:21, 2005 May 30 (UTC) ::True, but such a reader might still fid it useful to know why soiem kinds of content are not included in Wikipedia. I think such a link would add to an understqnding of what Wikipedia is, which is the subject of this article. User:DESiegel 16:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree that it is still noteworthy to talk about what editors of wikipedia (i.e., us) think what should be included and what should not be. But making a link is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. -- User:TakuyaMurata 23:50, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) == Proposal to rename the self-article == I think the Wikipedia article should swap content between Wikipedia:Wikipedia and Wikipedia, and make the main title Wikipedia:Wikipedia since the article mainly focuses on Wikipedia. --User:SuperDude115 21:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It is an article about Wikipedia. It isn't a user guide. It isn't something specifically for this project (as the Wikipedia: namespace dictates), but an encyclopedia article on an encyclopedic topic. User:smoddy 21:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia. Why would we want to have a encyclopedia article about wikipedia in the wikipedia namespace, why not just stick the aricle on a talk page? --User:Clawed 21:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Object, this is an informative article, and articles don't belong in the Wikipedia: namespace (it's for guides, reference). --User:Poiuytman User talk:PoiuytmanUser:Poiuytman 00:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Object, for the reasons mentioned above. Perhaps you can add some flesh to Wikipedia:Wikipedia if it needs any. -- 04:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) * Object for reasons stated above. -- User:Arwel Parry 13:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Object. per above. User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 14:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Object. Articles should remain in the article namespace, project articles should be in the Wikipedia namespace. But I'm surprised that Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia — isn't there anything that's project-oriented that we have to say about ourselves? — User:Asbestos | User talk:Asbestos 14:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Object Article NS. …User:Guy M… (User talk:Guy M) 00:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) == Vandalism == FYI I looked at this article on the date below, only to find that the content had been somewhat altered. It was only one phrase and I think it went "A gay site by a bunch of queafing (?) transsexuals." The strange thing was that the history revealed nothing, only when I "edited" the article (went to 'edit this page' and clicked edit) did the normal page come up. Any ideas as to how the vandal managed to alter the page without it appearing on the history? (Taking a look at the history you'll notice that Mel Etitis (i think) recently reverted a vandalism, could it be the same vandal?) User:Dwilke 18:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) :Hi, Dan. Yes, it was reverted by Mel at 16:24, 6 minutes after the vandalism. This link won't last long (oh for MediaWiki 1.5!), but you can see his reversion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=0&oldid=14881894 here]. Cheers, User:smoddy 18:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=14881894 here], which is a permanent link (the trick is to go to the diff page, go to the previous edit, and then go to the next edit). --User:CesarB 18:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Criticism of Wikipedia merged and redirected== ''Crossposted at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia:'' I have merged the unique content of Criticism of Wikipedia into this article and turned Criticism of Wikipedia into a redirect. There was striking overlap, so the unique content didn't amount to much, see User:JRM's murderous plans at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, section "Warning: I intend to kill this page". Mostly such content consisted of fuller quotes from authorities already cited in Wikipedia, e. g., this well-known and telling quote from Robert McHenry: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." Anything like that has been tenderly merged into Wikipedia. The only things I've knowingly let fall by the wayside, as being too low-quality for a featured article, is unsourced grinching by Some People, for example "Some people predict that Wikipedia is going to end up as "just as a bunch of flame wars"" (some people seem to be quoting some other people here). If anybody's planning to revert my actions, please give some thought to the issue of references, because the Criticism page did have something that Wikipedia was in want of: an appropriate (if short) "References" section. Wikipedia had and has a very fine collection of references, but before my meddling, they were given only in a footnote section (confusingly titled "References".) Footnotes are not enough, the reader also needs an alphabetical list of the sources used. But won't such a list merely duplicate information already given in the footnotes? Yes. Well, isn't that a wanton waste of space? No, it's an essential reader convenience. The reader who wonders if Simon Waldman's Guardian article was used, or who wants the bibliographical information for it, needs to be able to find it on an organized list, as opposed to having to dig it out of a disorganized list, which is what the footnotes are. The alphabetical list can be dispensed with if there are only a few references—usefulness and what the reader really needs are the overriding principles—but the larger the number of references, the more important it becomes to have it. I have made a start on a proper "References" section by importing the short References list (only three items) from Criticism of Wikipedia. I have also inlined references to these three sources in appropriate places in the text, where required. These references and their placement in the text were valuable information in Criticism of Wikipedia, and I have been careful of it. Oh, and I have renamed the footnote section "Footnotes". I'm hoping somebody else will help with the work of adding all the other footnoted sources in alphabetical order to the new References section. Alphabetize by author's name where known, please, otherwise by article name or page name. If you like, feel free to list the sources without taking any trouble over formatting, I'll be dropping by to format them if required, and to add them myself if necessary. (I admit I'd like to see first if anybody's going to revert the work I've done so far. Feel free to be bold, as I was.) User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Simple English Wikipedia == I have come across the sister project [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Simple English Wikipedia], and i found that searching for it on wikipedia redirects to this article, even though it is not mentioned here. Shouldnt it at least be mentioned under Sister Projects, and perhaps even have its own article?--User:ColdFeet 04:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Is the name wikipedia copyrighted?== Originally posted by: User:Mir 03:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) at the top of the page, and never answered. :Yes, it is trademarked. See meta:Wikimedia_trademarks --User:Michael180 15:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) == Awards == We're meant to international, right? What about awards from other countries? I know that there have been ''several'' from Germany. Can we add info on these? - User:Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Why wikipedia`s goal be removed? == I put the section "Goal", I copied that from wikimedia official pages. Thanks for your answer.--User:gengiskanhg (User talk:Gengiskanhg) 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I can't quite find where it was removed, but it was a little bit too promotional (which is fine for the wikimedia official pages, but not for a neutral article about wikipedia). I suppose we could have a section on Wikipedia's goals, however I think it pretty much follows from the intro section. --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 11:35, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) ::It was merged yesterday by User:Meelar, with this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=15254438&oldid=15247122]. Hope this helps, User:smoddy 12:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Factoids? == I am doing a research project on Wikipedia itself (its ease of use, how to use, factual information on it, advantages compared to paper alternatives), and I was wondering if there were figures anywhere on how many pictures are hosted on Wikipedia. Moreover, if that information exists, I don't see a reason why it can't be featured on this page. --User:Pathogen1014 19:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I think the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm Wikipedia statistics] pages should prove useful. The number of images and other files on the English Wikipedia was 227,000 as of May 15, with a total of 645,000 total across all languages. The [http://commons.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Commons] has 100,000 files as of May 24. I can't give you the actual number of unique images on the site as a whole, as there's quite a few duplicates floating around. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 00:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Definite article == Does anyone else tend to call this website ''The Wikipedia'' as opposed to ''Wikipedia''. Perhaps a comment about usage of The should be added. User:131.111.250.45 14:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia
#REDIRECT Wikipedia
Wikipedia
#REDIRECT Talk:Wikipedia
Wikipedia
This user cannot be created as it would likely cause Wikipedia:Username. ====User:Wikipedia==== It can be created, but the name would most likely be changed. - User:Calmypal 23:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) *It has been already claimed, so keep. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 00:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) *What about User:Administrator? Should we have a policy of not allowing self-chosen names that imply official status? User:MK 23:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) *A developer should block having certain words in names. - User:Calmypal 19:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) I blocked. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 19:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Your username has been blocked as inappropriate, in line with our wikipedia:blocking policy. You are encouraged to Wikipedia:Why create an account? and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a Wikipedia:The perfect article manner. See wikipedia:username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. Alternatively, edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing namechanges, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in wikipedia:dealing with vandalism, we will remove that block as soon as possible - if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation to them - see wikipedia:list of administrators. Once you create a new account with an appropriate username, you may wish to leave a note at your old user page noting your new name. To merge the contributions from your old account into your new one, leave a note on Wikipedia:Changing username.
Wikipedia
This category concerns Wikipedia itself, including Wikipedia management policies. Wikimedia projects br:Category:Wikipedia fa:Category:ویکیپدیا th:Category:วิกิพีเดีย vi:Category:Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Isn't this doing the same job as the Wikipedia namespace? If I don't get a response in a while,(i.e. a month or so), I'll list this on Catagories for Deletion... User:JesseW 08:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) This page is actually the root of a tree that organizes all the pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Speaking of which, that tree needs to be finished being populated. If anyone can lend a hand, please see Wikipedia:Auto-categorization/Wikipedia namespace. All the things there need categorizing under this category (or deleting or merging or whatever). Right now, this category itself could also use some cleaning out by putting articles into appropriate subcategories and whatnot. I've been putting some work into it, but it's a large task and it would benefit from being seen by multiple eyes. -- User:Beland 05:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia
|
There is also a :{}:.
|
Wikipedia
''Wikipedia'' is a World Wide Web-based, Free content encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers and sponsored by the Non-profit organization Wikimedia. It has editions in roughly 200 different languages (about 100 of which are active) and contains entries both on traditional encyclopedic topics and on almanac, gazetteer, and current events topics. Its purpose is to create and distribute a free international encyclopedia in as many languages as possible. ''Wikipedia'' is one of the most popular reference sites on the internet, receiving around 60 million hits per day. ''Wikipedia'' contains approximately 1.6 million articles. More than 600,000 of these are in English Wikipedia, more than 240,000 in German Wikipedia, and more than 100,000 each in Japanese Wikipedia and French Wikipedia. It began as a complement to the expert-written ''Nupedia'' on January 15, 2001. Having steadily risen in popularity, it has spawned several sister projects, such as Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. It is edited by volunteers in wiki fashion, meaning articles are subject to change by nearly anyone. ''Wikipedia'''s volunteers enforce a policy of "neutral point of view" whereby views presented by notable persons or literature are summarized without an attempt to determine an objectivity (journalism) truth. Because of its open nature, vandalism and inaccuracy are problems in ''Wikipedia''. The status of ''Wikipedia'' as a reference work has been controversial, and it is both praised for its free distribution, free editing and wide range of topics and criticized for alleged systemic biases, deficiencies in some topics, and lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias. Its articles have been cited by the mass media and academia and are available under the GNU Free Documentation License. Its German language edition has been distributed on compact discs, and many of its other editions are Mirror (computing) or have been Fork (software) by websites. ==Characteristics== ''Wikipedia's'' goal is to create a free, reliable encyclopedia—indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth. ''Wikipedia'' is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." It is created on the wikipedia.org website using a type of computer software called a "wiki," from the Hawaiian language ''wiki wiki'' ("quick"). Wales intends that ''Wikipedia'' should achieve a standard comparable to that of the "''Encyclopædia Britannica'' or better" and be published in print. Several other Internet encyclopedia project exist or have existed on the Internet. Traditional editorial policies and article ownership are used in some, such as the expert-written ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the now-defunct ''Nupedia''. More casual websites such as H2G2 or Everything2 serve as general guides whose articles are written and controlled by individuals. Projects such as ''Wikipedia'', Susning.nu, and the ''Enciclopedia Libre'', are wikis in which articles are developed by numerous authors, and there is no formal process of review. ''Wikipedia'' has become the largest such encyclopedic wiki by article and word-count. Unlike many encyclopedias, it licenses its content under the GNU Free Documentation License. ''Wikipedia'' attempts to be an encyclopedia and not a complete compilation of human knowledge. There is a set of policies identifying kinds of information that are not appropriate for inclusion, known as WP:NOT. These policies are often cited in disputes over whether particular content should be added, removed, or revised. ===Free-content=== The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), the license under which ''Wikipedia'''s articles are made available, is one of many "copyleft" copyright licenses that permit the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content provided its authors are attributed and this content remains available under the GFDL. When an author contributes original material to the project, the copyright over it is retained with them, but they agree to make the work available under the GFDL. Material on ''Wikipedia'' may thus be distributed to, or incorporated from, resources which also use this license. ''Wikipedia'''s content has been mirrored or forked by hundreds of resources from database dumps. Although all text is available under the GFDL, a significant percentage of English ''Wikipedia'''s images and sounds are non-free. Items such as corporate logos, song samples, or copyrighted news photos are used with a claim of fair use. Material has also been given to ''Wikipedia'' under no-Derivative work or for-''Wikipedia''-only conditions. ''Wikipedia'' has been used by the media, academics, and others as a reference or supplement. News organizations have referred to ''Wikipedia'' articles as sources or in sidebars containing related information on the Web, some regularly. According to lists maintained by ''Wikipedia'''s editors, its articles have been cited most frequently in the news media. Less frequently, it has been used in academic studies, books, conferences, and court cases. For instance, the Parliament of Canada website refers to ''Wikipedia'''s article on same-sex marriage in the "further reading" list of Bill C-38. Noncomprehensive lists are maintained by Wikipedians of ''Wikipedia'' as a source. Hello, my names G.Hunt and we've lived in Wikipedia all our lives. ===Language editions=== ''Wikipedia'' encompasses 92 "active" language editions as of March 2005. Its five largest editions are, in descending order, English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and Swedish Wikipedia. In total, ''Wikipedia'' contains 195 language editions of varying states with a combined 1.5 million articles. Language editions operate independently of one another. Editions are not bound to the content of other language editions, and are only held to global policies such as "neutral point of view". Articles and images are nonetheless shared between ''Wikipedia'' editions, the former through pages to request translations organized on many of the larger language editions, and the latter through the Wikimedia Commons repository. Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in any edition. The following is a list of the largest editions, sorted by number of articles as of May 2005. #English Wikipedia (575,835) #German Wikipedia (237,385) #Japanese Wikipedia (119,657) #French Wikipedia (111,722) #Swedish Wikipedia (78,193) #Dutch Wikipedia (72,261) #Polish Wikipedia (69,402) #Portuguese Wikipedia (50,970) #Spanish Wikipedia (49,929) #Italian Wikipedia (45,741) #Chinese Wikipedia (29,585) #Norwegian language (26,459) #Danish language (24,583) #Esperanto (24,110) #Finnish language (22,944) ==Editing== Almost all visitors may edit ''Wikipedia'''s articles and have their changes be instantly displayed. ''Wikipedia'' is built on the belief that collaboration among users will improve articles over time, in much the same way that Open source develops. Its authors need not have any expertise or formal qualifications in the subjects which they edit, and users are warned that their contributions may be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" by anyone who so wishes. Its articles are not controlled by any particular user or editorial group, and decision-making on the content and editorial policies of ''Wikipedia'' is instead done by Consensus decision-making and occasionally vote, though Jimmy Wales retains final judgment. By the nature of its openness, "edit wars" (also called "revert wars") and prolonged disputes often occur when editors do not agree. Members of its community have explained its editing process as a collaborative work, a Social Darwinism Evolution process." Articles are always subject to editing, such that ''Wikipedia'' does not declare any article finished. Vandalism has been a constant problem for ''Wikipedia''. ===Policies=== ''Wikipedia'' requires that its contributors observe a "neutral point of view" when writing, and not include original research. Neutral point of view, itself a "non-negotiable" policy, articulates the encyclopedia's goal of "''representing'' disputes, ''characterizing'' them, rather than engaging in them." If achieved, ''Wikipedia'' would not be written from a single "objective" point-of-view, but would fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way. The policy states that views should be given weight equal to their standing. This policy has been criticized as having an unattainable goal, being unnecessary with widely discredited material, and allowing the representation of "morally offensive" views. Opinions or theories that have not been previously published are considered "original research", which is not allowed. The "no original research" policy states that such material cannot be properly attributed under neutral point of view, and that editors' own novel ideas or perspectives are not to be introduced. ''Wikipedia'''s contributors additionally maintain a variety of lesser policies and guidelines. In contrast to other wikis of its time, such as Ward Cunningham's Portland Pattern Repository, Wikipedians use "talk" pages to discuss changes to articles, rather than discussing changes within the article itself. ''Wikipedia'' contributors often modify, move, or delete articles that are felt to be inappropriate to an encyclopedia, such as dictionary definitions ("dicdefs") or original source texts. Often, ''Wikipedia'' editions establish style conventions. ===Authors=== There are no formal distinctions between different editors on ''Wikipedia'', and decisions are ideally made by reaching consensus among those involved. During January 2005, ''Wikipedia'' had approximately 13,000 users who made at least five edits that month; 9,000 of these active users worked on its three largest language editions. A more active group of approximately 3,000 users made more than 100 edits per month, over half of these users having worked in the three largest editions. According to Wikimedia, one-quarter of ''Wikipedia'''s traffic comes from users without accounts, who are less likely to be editors. Maintenance tasks are performed by a group of volunteer developers, stewards, bureaucrats, and administrators, which number in the hundreds. Administrators are the largest such group, privileged with the ability to prevent articles from being edited, delete articles, or block users from editing in accordance with community policy. Many users have been temporarily or permanently blocked from editing ''Wikipedia''. Vandalism or the minor infraction of policies may result in a temporary block or warning, while long-term or permanent blocks are given by Wales or, on its English edition, an Arbitration Committee for prolonged and serious infractions. Former ''Wikipedia'' editor-in-chief Larry Sanger has said that having the GFDL license as a "guarantee of freedom is a strong motivation to work on a free encyclopedia." In a study of ''Wikipedia'' as a community, Economics professor Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in wiki software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a "creative construction" approach encourages participation. ''Wikipedia'' has been viewed as a social experiment in anarchy or democracy. Its founder has replied that it is not intended as one, though it is a consequence. In a page on researching with ''Wikipedia'', its authors argue that ''Wikipedia'' is valuable for being a social community. That is, authors can be asked to defend or clarify their work, and disputes are readily seen. ''Wikipedia'' editions also often contain reference desks in which the community answers questions. ==Evaluations== ''Wikipedia'''s claim to be or status as an encyclopedia has been controversial. ''Wikipedia'' has been criticized for a perceived lack of reliability, comprehensiveness, and authority. It is considered to have no or limited utility as a reference work among many librarians, Academias, and the editors of more formally written encyclopedias. ''Wikipedia'' is considered to be of sufficient quality in at least some areas by others, notably winning a comparative test by ''c't''. Much of its praise is for being both free-content and open to editing by anyone. ===Quality=== Critics argue that allowing anyone to edit makes ''Wikipedia'' an unreliable work. Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking, and the editors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about. In a 2004 interview with ''The Guardian'', librarian Philip Bradley said that he would not use ''Wikipedia'' and is "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window" (Waldman, 2004). Similarly, ''Encyclopædia Britannica'''s executive editor, Ted Pappas, was quoted in ''The Guardian'' as saying: "The premise of ''Wikipedia'' is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven." Discussing ''Wikipedia'' as an academic source, Danah Boyd said in 2005 that "[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes." Academic circles have not been exclusively dismissive of Wikipedia as a reference. Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal ''Science (journal)''. The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light" (Linden, 2002), and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. In a 2004 piece called "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia," former ''Britannica'' editor Robert McHenry criticized the wiki approach, writing, "[h]owever closely a ''Wikipedia'' article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler... The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." Aaron Krowne wrote a rebuttal article in which he criticized McHenry's methods, and labeled them "FUD," the marketing technique of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Former editor-in-chief Larry Sanger criticized ''Wikipedia'' in late 2004 for having, according to Sanger, an "anti-elitist" philosophy of active contempt for expertise. He further accused 'those who would on most Internet services be called ''Internet trolls'' of having "taken over" Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia'''s editing process assumes that exposing an article to many users will result in accuracy. Referencing Linus's law of open-source development, Sanger stated earlier: "Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow." Technology figure Joi Ito wrote on ''Wikipedia'''s authority, "[a]lthough it depends a bit on the field, the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived." Conversely, in an informal test of ''Wikipedia'''s ability to detect misinformation its author remarked that its process "isn't really a fact-checking mechanism so much as a voting mechanism", and that material which did not appear "blatantly false" may be accepted as true. ''Wikipedia'' has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg has argued that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. The entry on Hurricane Frances is five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on ''Coronation Street'' is twice as long as the article on Tony Blair." Former ''Nupedia'' editor-in-chief Larry Sanger stated in 2004, "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven." It has been praised for, as a wiki, allowing articles to be updated or created in response to current events. For example, the then-new article on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on its English edition was cited often by the press shortly after the incident. Its editors have also argued as a website, ''Wikipedia'' is able to include articles on a greater number of subjects than print encyclopedias may. Furthermore, it should be noted that by May 2005 Hoiberg's examples were no longer true: the article on Chinese art was roughly three times as long as the one on Hurricane Frances, and the article on Tony Blair was roughly 50% longer than the one on Coronation Street. Clearly, the articles in question were mentioned at the time merely as examples of a tendency toward lopsided coverage; however, they may also be referenced as examples of how the ''Wikipedia'' process tends toward a reasonable equilibrium. The German computing magazine ''c't'' performed a comparison of ''Brockhaus'', ''Encarta'', and ''Wikipedia'' in October 2004: . Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In overall score, ''Wikipedia'' was rated 3.6 out of 5 points ("B-"), ''Brockhaus Premium'' 3.3, and ''Microsoft Encarta'' 3.1. In an analysis of online encyclopedias, Indiana University professors Emigh and Herring wrote that "''Wikipedia'' improves on traditional information sources, especially for the content areas in which it is strong, such as technology and current events." A good analogy for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia's approach can be seen in looking at the difference between the standards of courtroom and investigative evidence. The fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone makes it difficult to claim it can be trusted with the same degree of certainty as one would expect from courtroom evidence. However, its openness to broader base of contributors allows it to achieve breadth and depth of creativity and connections that make it ideal for learning about and investigating ideas, similar to the way in which the more liberal use of investigative evidence can lead to important leads and further evidence that could have been strangled by applying the rigid standards of courtroom evidence. ===Community=== ''Wikipedia'' has a community of users who are proportionally few, but highly active. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices." Editors on Wikinfo, a fork of ''Wikipedia'', similarly argue that new or controversial editors to ''Wikipedia'' are often unjustly labeled "Internet trolls" or "problem users" and blocked from editing. Its community has also been criticised for expecting users who make complaints about an article's quality to fix it themselves. Several contributors have complained that editing Wikipedia is very tedious in the case of conflicts and that sufficiently dedicated contributors with idiosyncratic beliefs can push their point of view, because nobody has the time and energy to counteract the bias. In a page on researching with ''Wikipedia'', its authors argue that ''Wikipedia'' is valuable for being a social community. That is, authors can be asked to defend or clarify their work, and disputes are readily seen. ''Wikipedia'' editions also often contain reference desks in which the community answers questions. ===Awards=== ''Wikipedia'' won two major awards in May 2004: The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities, awarded by Prix Ars Electronica; this came with a 10,000 Euro grant and an invitation to present at the PAE Cyberarts Festival in Austria later that year. The second was a Judges' Webby Awards for the "community" category. ''Wikipedia'' was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby. In September 2004, the Japanese Wikipedia was awarded a Web Creation Award from the Japan Advertisers Association. This award, normally given to individuals for great contributions to the Web in Japanese, was accepted by a long-standing contributor on behalf of the project. ''Wikipedia'' has received plaudits from sources including BBC News, ''USA Today'', ''The Economist'', ''Newsweek'', ''BusinessWeek'', the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', ''Time Magazine'' and ''Wired Magazine''. Awards to the ''Wikipedia'' project and press clippings are listed by Wikimedia contributors on [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trophy_box its website]. On June 1, 2005, ''PC World (Magazine)'' released its list, "The 100 Best Products of 2005" in its July issue. It named ''Wikipedia'' one of the year's 100 best products. The magazine says that their award is for "great products [that] meld practical features with innovation." In spite of the designation, however, not all of the "products" are commercial in nature, and Wikipedia is actually one of 23 honorees that are available free of charge. Wikipedia came in at #60 overall on the ranked list, which was topped by Mozilla Firefox. The list — dominated by computer software and hardware products — included only a handful of other websites, among them Google, Flickr, and Internet Archive. Also included at #33 was the website of the ''The New York Times'', the only other information site to appear. In the same month, the Wikipedia widget for Apple Computer's Mac OS X "Tiger" ranked #3 of the most popular Apple Dashboard widgets (based on download frequency), beating out commercial encyclopedia Britannica's widget, which did not make the Top 50. ==History== [[Image:NupediaLogo.jpg|thumb||250px|''Wikipedia'' originated from ''Nupedia''.]] ''Wikipedia'' began as a complementary project of ''Nupedia'', a free online encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts through a formal process. ''Nupedia'' was founded on 9 March 2000 under the ownership of Bomis, a Web portal company. Its principal figures were Jimmy Wales, Bomis CEO and final authority , and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for ''Nupedia'' and later ''Wikipedia''. ''Nupedia'' was described by Sanger as differing from existing encyclopedias in being open content; not having size limitations, as it was on the Internet; and being free of bias, due to its public nature and potentially broad base of contributors. ''Nupedia'' had a seven-step review process by appointed subject-area experts, but was later widely viewed as too slow for producing a limited number of articles. Funded by Bomis, there were initial plans to recoup its investment by the use of advertisements. It was licensed under its own Nupedia Open Content License initially, switching to the GNU Free Documentation License prior to ''Wikipedia'''s founding at the urging of Richard Stallman. [[Image:WikipediaHomePage30March200.png|thumb|250px|''Wikipedia'''s English edition on March 20, 2001, two and one-half months after its founding.]] ''Wikipedia'' was formally launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at wikipedia.com. It had been, from January 10, a feature of Nupedia.com in which the public could write articles which could be incorporated into ''Nupedia'' after review. But it was relaunched off-site after ''Nupedia'''s Advisory Board of subject experts disapproved of its production model. ''Wikipedia'' thereafter operated as a standalone project without control from ''Nupedia''. Its policy of "neutral point-of-view" was codified in its initial months, though is similar to ''Nupedia'''s earlier "nonbias" policy. There were otherwise few rules initially. ''Wikipedia'' gained early contributors from ''Nupedia'', Slashdot postings, and search engine indexing. It grew to approximately 20,000 articles among 18 language editions by the end of its first year. It had 26 language editions by the end of 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the end of 2004. ''Nupedia'' and ''Wikipedia'' coexisted until the former's servers went down, permanently, in 2003, and its text was incorporated into ''Wikipedia''. Wales and Sanger attribute the concept of using a wiki to Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb or Portland Pattern Repository. Wales mentioned that he heard the concept first from Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee of Bomis who showed him the same wiki, in December 2000, but it was after Sanger heard of its existence from Ben Kovitz, a regular at this wiki, in January 2001, and proposed a creation of a wiki for ''Nupedia'' to Wales that ''Wikipedia'''s history started. Under a similar concept of free content, though not wiki production, the GNUPedia project existed alongside ''Nupedia'' early in its history. It subsequently became inactive and its creator, free software figure Richard Stallman, lent his support to ''Wikipedia''. Citing fear of commercial advertising and lack of control in a perceived English-centric ''Wikipedia'', users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from ''Wikipedia'' to create the ''Enciclopedia Libre'' in February 2002. Later that year, Wales announced that ''Wikipedia'' would not display Advertising, and moved its website to wikipedia.org. Projects have since forked from ''Wikipedia'''s content for editorial reasons, such as Wikinfo, which abandoned "neutral point-of-view" in favor of multiple complementary articles written from a "sympathetic point-of-view." From ''Wikipedia'' and ''Nupedia'', the Wikimedia Foundation was created on June 20, 2003. ''Wikipedia'' and its sister projects thereafter operated under this non-profit organization. ''Wikipedia'''s first sister project, "In Memoriam: September 11 Wiki" had been created in October 2002 to detail the September 11, 2001 attacks; Wiktionary, a dictionary project, was launched in December 2002; Wikiquotes, a collection of quotes, a week after Wikimedia launched; and Wikibooks, a collection of collaboratively-written free books, the next month. Wikimedia has since started a number of other projects, detailed below. ''Wikipedia'' has traditionally measured its status by article count. In its first two years it grew at a few hundred or less new articles per day. The English ''Wikipedia'' reached a 100,000 article milestone on January 22, 2003. In 2004, its article growth rate was approximately 1,000 to 3,000 per day. In all editions, it reached 500,000 articles on February 25, 2004. ''Wikipedia'' reached its one millionth article among 105 language editions on September 20, 2004. ===Software and hardware=== ''Wikipedia'' is run by MediaWiki open source software on a cluster of dedicated servers located in Florida. MediaWiki is Phase III of the program's software. Originally, ''Wikipedia'' ran on UseModWiki by Clifford Adams (Phase I). At first it required CamelCase for links; later it was also possible to use double brackets. ''Wikipedia'' began running on a PHP wiki software with a MySQL database in January 2002. This software, Phase II, was written specifically for the ''Wikipedia'' project by Magnus Manske. Several rounds of modifications were made to improve performance in response to increased demand. Ultimately, the software was rewritten again, this time by Lee Daniel Crocker. Instituted in July 2002, this Phase III software was called MediaWiki. It was licensed under the GNU General Public License and used by all Wikimedia projects. ''Wikipedia'' was served from a single server until 2003, when the server setup was expanded into an n-tier distributed architecture. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache HTTP Server software, and seven Squid cache servers. By the first week of June 2005, the server cluster had grown to more than 60 servers, and, at the request of the operator of the colocation facility in which they were located, the entire cluster was (more or less) successfully 2005 Florida cluster relocation into the provider's new building, across a street in downtown Tampa, at about 4:30 in the morning. Page requests are processed by first passing to a front-end layer of Squid cache servers. Requests that cannot be served from the Squid cache are sent to two load-balancing servers running the perlbal software, which then pass the request to one of the Apache web servers for page-rendering from the database. The web servers serve pages as requested, performing page rendering for all the ''Wikipedia''s. To increase speed further, rendered pages for anonymous users are cached in a filesystem until invalidated, allowing page rendering to be skipped entirely for most common page accesses. Wikimedia has begun building a global network of Squid cache with the addition of three such servers in France. A new Dutch cluster is also online now. The ongoing status of ''Wikipedia'''s website is posted by users at a [http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Wikipedia_Status status page] on OpenFacts. ==Sister projects== ''Wikipedia'' has free-content sister projects which fulfill non-encyclopedic roles. Its largest are: Wiktionary, a free dictionary project; Wikibooks, a free textbook project; Wikiquote, a free encyclopedia of quotations; Wikisource, a multilingual repository of free source texts; Wikimedia Commons, a shared media respository; and Wikinews, a free news source. ''Wikipedia'' and its sister projects are administered by the Wikimedia. ==See also== *Internet encyclopedia project ==Notes== #According to Alexa Internet, "[http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=10 Browse:Reference]" (28 March 2005). #See plots at "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/PlotsPngUsageVisits.htm Visits per day]", ''Wikipedia'' Statistics, 1 January 2005. #Jimmy Wales, "[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-March/038102.html Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]", 8 March 2005,
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
W
WA | WB | WC | WD | WE | WF | WG | WH | WI | WJ | WK | WL | WM | WN | WO | WP | WR | WS | WT | WU | WX | WY | WZ |Words begining with Wikipedia:
WIKIPEDIA
WIKIPEDIA
WikiPedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia's_oldest_article
Wikipedia's_oldest_articles
Wikipedia,Jesus,Hitler
Wikipedia,_the_free_encyclopedia
Wikipedia-CD/Download
Wikipedia-en
Wikipedia-Goldmark-l.jpg
Wikipedia-Goldmark-r.jpg
Wikipedia-L
Wikipedia-L
Wikipedia-L
Wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-me.jpg
Wikipedia-me.jpg
Wikipedia-mode.el
Wikipedia-mode.el
Wikipedia-namespace
Wikipedia-namespace
Wikipedia-screenshot
Wikipedia-screenshot.jpg
Wikipedia-stub
Wikipedia-Supported_Software
Wikipedia-Supported_Software
Wikipedia-WillYouMarryMe?
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia./monobook.css
Wikipedia.com
Wikipedia.com
Wikipedia.contributor
Wikipedia.contributor
Wikipedia.doc
Wikipedia.jpg
Wikipedia.org
Wikipedia.vim
Wikipedia/Archive_1
Wikipedia/Archive_2
Wikipedia/Archive_3
Wikipedia/Archive_4
Wikipedia/Article_a_day_queue
Wikipedia/Article_a_day_queue
Wikipedia/Article_a_Day_Talk
Wikipedia/Building_membership
Wikipedia/Date_for_Homepage
Wikipedia/Heirarchical_Linking_System_proposal
Wikipedia/History
Wikipedia/Logos_and_slogans
Wikipedia/Logos_and_slogans
Wikipedia/Magic_Button
Wikipedia/Most_popular_pages
Wikipedia/Most_popular_pages_October_2001
Wikipedia/Most_popular_pages_October_2001
Wikipedia/Nupedia2Wikipedia
Wikipedia/Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics
Wikipedia/Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics
Wikipedia/Questions
Wikipedia/Replies_to_Critics_Talk
Wikipedia/Temp
Wikipedia/votes_for_deletion
Wikipedia1
Wikipedia100
Wikipedia111
Wikipedia3fnlc.svg
Wikipedia3_documentation
Wikipedia3_documentation
WIKIPEDIA4
Wikipedia4
WIKIPEDIA5
Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense
Wikipedia:Don't_be_a_dick
Wikipedia:Favorite_pages_of_banned_users
Wikipedia:Goings-on
Wikipedia:List_of_articles_with_C_programs
Wikipedia:List_of_pages_whose_correct_title_is_not_allowed_by_the_Wikipedia_software
Wikipedia:Microstub
Wikipedia:Namespace
Wikipedia:namespace
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Kenney
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jwrosenzweig
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein
Wikipedia:Sollog_sock_puppets
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_CheeseDreams
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_JohnMarkham
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_KaintheScion
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Sollog
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_UDoN't!wAn*
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Wik
Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Wikipedia_is_Communism
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Introversion_-_Extroversion
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vaughan_Secondary_School
Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservation_Worldwide
Wikipedia:Wikispam
Wikipedia:_unencyclopedic
Wikipedia;sandbox
WikipediaAdmin
WikipediaAdmin
WikipediaAdministrator
WikipediaAdministrator
WikiPediaAid
WikiPediaAid
WikiPediaAnnouncements
WikiPediaAnnouncements/February2001
WikiPediaAnnouncements/January2001
WikiPediaBugs
Wikipediacanal.jpg
Wikipediacats
Wikipediacats
Wikipediacats-flat
Wikipediacats-flat
WikiPediaFaq
WikipediaFAQ
WikipediaFAQ
WikipediaFAQBottom
Wikipediagirl4ever
Wikipediagoingson
Wikipediaguy
Wikipediaholic
Wikipediaholic_clinic
Wikipediaintro
Wikipediaintro
Wikipediaintro
WikipediaL
WikipediaLang
WikipediaLang
Wikipedialang
Wikipedialang
Wikipedialang
Wikipedialang/archive1
Wikipedialang/archive2
Wikipedialang/Proposal
Wikipedialang_(word_count)
Wikipedialang_(word_count)
Wikipediamarek
Wikipedian
Wikipedian
Wikipedian
Wikipedian231
Wikipedian231
Wikipedian231/extrapage
Wikipedian231/Louis_Carnec
Wikipedian231/Sandbox
Wikipedian231/sandbox
Wikipedianarticle
Wikipedianarticle
WikiPedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians
Wikipedians/
Wikipedians/''Green''_users
Wikipedians/Acadia
Wikipedians/Alabama
Wikipedians/Alabama
Wikipedians/Alaska
Wikipedians/Alaska
Wikipedians/Albania
Wikipedians/Algeria
Wikipedians/Allegheny_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Americans
Wikipedians/American_Samoa
Wikipedians/Andorra
Wikipedians/Andorra
Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
Wikipedians/Anti-Iraq_War_users
Wikipedians/Argentina
Wikipedians/Argentina
Wikipedians/Arizona
Wikipedians/Arizona
Wikipedians/Arkansas
Wikipedians/Armenia
Wikipedians/Aruba
Wikipedians/Australia
Wikipedians/Australia
Wikipedians/Australia
Wikipedians/Australians
Wikipedians/Australia_and_New_Zealand
Wikipedians/Austria
Wikipedians/Austria
Wikipedians/Azerbaijan
Wikipedians/Bangladesh
Wikipedians/Barbados
Wikipedians/Basque_Country
Wikipedians/Basque_Country
Wikipedians/Basque_Country_Basque_Country_Euskal-Herria
Wikipedians/Beaver_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Belarus
Wikipedians/Belgium
Wikipedians/Belgium
Wikipedians/Bergen_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Berks_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Bermuda
Wikipedians/Blair_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Bolivia
Wikipedians/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
Wikipedians/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
Wikipedians/Brazil
Wikipedians/Brazil
Wikipedians/Brittany
Wikipedians/Bulgaria
Wikipedians/Bulgaria
Wikipedians/Butler_County,_PA
Wikipedians/California
Wikipedians/California
Wikipedians/Camden_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Cameroon
Wikipedians/Canada
Wikipedians/Canada
Wikipedians/Canada
Wikipedians/Canadians
Wikipedians/Cartographers
Wikipedians/Cartographers
Wikipedians/Catalonia
Wikipedians/Catalonia
Wikipedians/Centre_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Cherry_Hill,_New_Jersey
Wikipedians/Chester_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Chester_County,_PA/Caln_Township
Wikipedians/Chile
Wikipedians/Chile
Wikipedians/China
Wikipedians/China
Wikipedians/China
Wikipedians/ClaudineChionh
Wikipedians/Clearfield_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Colombia
Wikipedians/Colorado
Wikipedians/Colorado
Wikipedians/Connecticut
Wikipedians/Connecticut
Wikipedians/Corea
Wikipedians/Corea
Wikipedians/Croatia
Wikipedians/Croatia
Wikipedians/Cuba
Wikipedians/Cyprus
Wikipedians/Czech_Republic
Wikipedians/Czech_Republic
Wikipedians/Daejeon
Wikipedians/Delaware
Wikipedians/Delaware
Wikipedians/Delaware_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Denmark
Wikipedians/Denmark
Wikipedians/District_of_Columbia
Wikipedians/District_of_Columbia
Wikipedians/District_of_Columbia
Wikipedians/Ecuador
Wikipedians/Egypt
Wikipedians/England
Wikipedians/Essex_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Estonia
Wikipedians/Estonia
Wikipedians/Europe
Wikipedians/Faroe_Islands
Wikipedians/Fiji
Wikipedians/Finland
Wikipedians/Finland
Wikipedians/Finns
Wikipedians/Florida
Wikipedians/Florida
Wikipedians/Florida
Wikipedians/France
Wikipedians/France
Wikipedians/France
Wikipedians/Georgia
Wikipedians/Georgia
Wikipedians/Georgia,_USA
Wikipedians/Georgia,_USA
Wikipedians/Germans
Wikipedians/Germany
Wikipedians/Germany
Wikipedians/Ghana
Wikipedians/Gloucester_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Graphic_Artists
Wikipedians/Graphic_Artists
Wikipedians/Graphic_artists
Wikipedians/Graphic_artists
Wikipedians/Greece
Wikipedians/Greece
Wikipedians/Greece
Wikipedians/Green_users
Wikipedians/Green_users
Wikipedians/Guadeloupe
Wikipedians/Haddonfield,_New_Jersey
Wikipedians/Hawaii
Wikipedians/History
Wikipedians/History
Wikipedians/History
Wikipedians/History_talk
Wikipedians/Hondurans
Wikipedians/Honduras
Wikipedians/Hong_Kong
Wikipedians/Hong_Kong
Wikipedians/Hungary
Wikipedians/Hungary
Wikipedians/Iceland
Wikipedians/Idaho
Wikipedians/Idaho
Wikipedians/Illinois
Wikipedians/Illinois
Wikipedians/India
Wikipedians/India
Wikipedians/India
Wikipedians/Indiana
Wikipedians/Indiana
Wikipedians/Indonesia
Wikipedians/Indonesia
Wikipedians/Iowa
Wikipedians/Iowa
Wikipedians/Iran
Wikipedians/Iran
Wikipedians/Iraq
Wikipedians/Ireland
Wikipedians/Irish
Wikipedians/Israel
Wikipedians/Israel
Wikipedians/Israelians
Wikipedians/Israelis
Wikipedians/Italy
Wikipedians/Italy
Wikipedians/Jamaica
Wikipedians/Japan
Wikipedians/Japan
Wikipedians/Japan
Wikipedians/Jordan
Wikipedians/Kansas
Wikipedians/Kansas
Wikipedians/Kentucky
Wikipedians/Kentucky
Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedians/Korea
Wikipedians/Lackawanna_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Lancaster_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Latvia
Wikipedians/Lebanon
Wikipedians/Lehigh_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Liberia
Wikipedians/Libya
Wikipedians/Linux_users
Wikipedians/Lithuania
Wikipedians/Louisiana
Wikipedians/Louisiana
Wikipedians/Luxembourg
Wikipedians/Macao
Wikipedians/Mac_users
Wikipedians/Mac_users
Wikipedians/Maine
Wikipedians/Maine
Wikipedians/Malaysia
Wikipedians/Malaysia
Wikipedians/Maldives
Wikipedians/Malta
Wikipedians/Malta
Wikipedians/Maryland
Wikipedians/Maryland
Wikipedians/Massachusetts
Wikipedians/Massachusetts
Wikipedians/Massachusetts
Wikipedians/Mercer_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Mexico
Wikipedians/Mexico
Wikipedians/Michigan
Wikipedians/Michigan
Wikipedians/Middlesex_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Minnesota
Wikipedians/Minnesota
Wikipedians/Mississippi
Wikipedians/Mississippi
Wikipedians/Missouri
Wikipedians/Missouri
Wikipedians/Moldova
Wikipedians/Mongolia
Wikipedians/Mongolian
Wikipedians/Montana
Wikipedians/Montana
Wikipedians/Morocco
Wikipedians/Morris_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Myanmar
Wikipedians/Nebraska
Wikipedians/Nebraska
Wikipedians/Neopagan
Wikipedians/Neopagan
Wikipedians/Nepal
Wikipedians/Nevada
Wikipedians/Nevada
Wikipedians/New_Hampshire
Wikipedians/New_Hampshire
Wikipedians/New_Jersey
Wikipedians/New_Jersey
Wikipedians/New_Mexico
Wikipedians/New_York
Wikipedians/New_York
Wikipedians/New_Zealand
Wikipedians/New_Zealand
Wikipedians/New_Zealand
Wikipedians/Nigeria
Wikipedians/Northern_Ireland
Wikipedians/Northrop_High_School
Wikipedians/North_Carolina
Wikipedians/North_Carolina
Wikipedians/North_Carolina
Wikipedians/North_Dakota
Wikipedians/North_Korea
Wikipedians/Norway
Wikipedians/Norway
Wikipedians/Occitan
Wikipedians/Ohio
Wikipedians/Ohio
Wikipedians/Ohio
Wikipedians/Oklahoma
Wikipedians/old
Wikipedians/Ontario
Wikipedians/Oregon
Wikipedians/Oregon
Wikipedians/Oregon
Wikipedians/Other
Wikipedians/Other
Wikipedians/Other
Wikipedians/Pakistan
Wikipedians/Pakistan
Wikipedians/Paraguay
Wikipedians/Passaic_County,_NJ
Wikipedians/Pennsauken,_New_Jersey
Wikipedians/Pennsylvania
Wikipedians/Pennsylvania
Wikipedians/Peru
Wikipedians/Philadelphia_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Philippines
Wikipedians/Philippines
Wikipedians/Photographers
Wikipedians/Photographers
Wikipedians/Pitcairn_Islands
Wikipedians/Poland
Wikipedians/Poland
Wikipedians/Poles
Wikipedians/Portugal
Wikipedians/Portugal
Wikipedians/Portuguese
Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico
Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico
Wikipedians/Punks
Wikipedians/Quebec
Wikipedians/Quebec
Wikipedians/Québec
Wikipedians/Queer
Wikipedians/Queer
Wikipedians/Republic_of_Ireland
Wikipedians/Republic_of_Ireland
Wikipedians/Rhode_Island
Wikipedians/Rhode_Island
Wikipedians/Romania
Wikipedians/Romania
Wikipedians/Roots_Rock_Reggae_Security_Investigators
Wikipedians/Roots_Rock_Reggae_Security_Investigators
Wikipedians/Russia
Wikipedians/Russia
Wikipedians/Saudi_Arabia
Wikipedians/Scotland
Wikipedians/Serbia_&_Montenegro
Wikipedians/Serbia_and_Montenegro
Wikipedians/Singapore
Wikipedians/Singapore
Wikipedians/Singapore
Wikipedians/Slovakia
Wikipedians/Slovakia
Wikipedians/Slovenia
Wikipedians/Slovenia
Wikipedians/Somewhere_unspecified_in_the_United_States_of_America
Wikipedians/South_Africa
Wikipedians/South_Africa
Wikipedians/South_Africa
Wikipedians/South_Carolina
Wikipedians/South_Dakota
Wikipedians/South_Korea
Wikipedians/South_Korea
Wikipedians/South_Korea
Wikipedians/Spain
Wikipedians/Spain
Wikipedians/Sri_Lanka
Wikipedians/Suriname
Wikipedians/Suriname
Wikipedians/Surrealist_Wikipedians
Wikipedians/Sweden
Wikipedians/Sweden
Wikipedians/Sweden
Wikipedians/Switzerland
Wikipedians/Switzerland
Wikipedians/Syria
Wikipedians/Taiwan
Wikipedians/Taiwan
Wikipedians/Technical_Communicators
Wikipedians/Tennessee
Wikipedians/Tennessee
Wikipedians/Texas
Wikipedians/Texas
Wikipedians/Texas
Wikipedians/Thailand
Wikipedians/The_Netherlands
Wikipedians/The_Netherlands
Wikipedians/Transcribers
Wikipedians/Transcribers
Wikipedians/Translators
Wikipedians/Translators
Wikipedians/Trinidad_And_Tobago
Wikipedians/Trinidad_and_Tobago
Wikipedians/Turkey
Wikipedians/Turkey
Wikipedians/Ukraine
Wikipedians/Ukraine
Wikipedians/United_Kingdom
Wikipedians/United_Kingdom
Wikipedians/United_Kingdom
Wikipedians/United_Kingdom
Wikipedians/United_States
Wikipedians/United_States
Wikipedians/Uruguay
Wikipedians/Utah
Wikipedians/Utah
Wikipedians/Vegetarians
Wikipedians/Vegetarians
Wikipedians/Vegetarians
Wikipedians/Venezuela
Wikipedians/Vermont
Wikipedians/Vermont
Wikipedians/Vietnam
Wikipedians/Virginia
Wikipedians/Virginia
Wikipedians/Virginia
Wikipedians/Voorhees,_New_Jersey
Wikipedians/Wales
Wikipedians/Washington
Wikipedians/Washington
Wikipedians/Washington
Wikipedians/Wayne_County,_PA
Wikipedians/Westmoreland_County,_PA
Wikipedians/West_Virginia
Wikipedians/West_Virginia
Wikipedians/Wisconsin
Wikipedians/Wisconsin
Wikipedians/Wisconsin
Wikipedians/World_Citizen
Wikipedians/World_Citizen
Wikipedians/World_citizens
Wikipedians/World_citizens
Wikipedians/Wyoming
Wikipedians:Wikipedians/Malta
WikipediansBreakdownMBTI.jpg
Wikipedians_(old)
Wikipedians_(old)
Wikipedians_are_Anarchists
Wikipedians_Asia
Wikipedians_by_alma_mater
Wikipedians_by_alma_mater
Wikipedians_by_birthday
Wikipedians_by_birthday
Wikipedians_by_country
Wikipedians_by_culture
Wikipedians_by_culture/Hispanic
Wikipedians_by_D&D_alignment
Wikipedians_by_D&D_alignment
Wikipedians_by_edits
Wikipedians_by_favorite_sport
Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest
Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest
Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest
Wikipedians_by_most_recent_edit
Wikipedians_by_most_recent_edit
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/scripts
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits_(July_2003)
Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits_(July_2003)
Wikipedians_by_number_of_recent_edits
Wikipedians_by_organization
Wikipedians_by_pet
Wikipedians_by_profession
Wikipedians_by_race
Wikipedians_by_race
Wikipedians_by_race
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_religion
Wikipedians_by_sex
Wikipedians_by_sex
Wikipedians_by_sex
Wikipedians_by_skill
Wikipedians_by_U.S._state
Wikipedians_Canada
Wikipedians_Central_America
WIkipedians_from_Puerto_Rico
Wikipedians_in_order_of_arrival
Wikipedians_New_Europe
Wikipedians_North_America
Wikipedians_of_Argentina
Wikipedians_Old_Europe
Wikipedians_Old_Europe
Wikipedians_resources
Wikipedians_resources
Wikipedians_somewhere_unspecified_in_the_United_States_of_America
Wikipedians_South_America
Wikipedians_sub_pages
Wikipedians_United_States
Wikipedians_using_foreign-character_sigs
Wikipedians_using_foreign-character_sigs
Wikipedians_who_blog
Wikipedians_with_article
Wikipedians_with_articles
Wikipedians_with_articles
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_0
Wikipedians_with_Wikistress_Level_1
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_1
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_2
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_3
Wikipedians_with_wikistress_level_4
Wikipedian_actuarialists
Wikipedian_applied_mathematicians
Wikipedian_artists
Wikipedian_citizens_of_the_world
Wikipedian_citizens_of_the_world
Wikipedian_computer_scientists
Wikipedian_cryptographers
Wikipedian_edit_archive
Wikipedian_in_the_Cleanup_Taskforce
Wikipedian_journalists
Wikipedian_journalists
Wikipedian_Livejournalers
Wikipedian_mathematicians
Wikipedian_military
Wikipedian_musicians
Wikipedian_organizations
Wikipedian_programmers
Wikipedian_random_pages
Wikipedian_with_articles
Wikipedian_with_most_edits
Wikipediapage
Wikipediapage
WikipediaParamotor.jpg
WikiPediaProcess
WikipediArt
WikipediaSister
WikipediaSister
Wikipediasister
Wikipediasister
Wikipediasister
Wikipediasister-list
Wikipediasister-list
Wikipediasister-list
WikipediaSister/CSS
WikipediaSister/temp
Wikipediasistertablefree
Wikipediasistertablefree
Wikipediasister_(text_only)
Wikipediastatistics
WIKIPEDIASUCKS
WIKIPEDIASUCKS
Wikipedias_by_language
Wikipediatag
WikipediaTOC
WikipediaTOC
Wikipediatoc
Wikipediatoc
Wikipediatoc-main
Wikipediatoc-main
Wikipediatoc/layout
Wikipediatoc/layout
Wikipediatoc/layout
Wikipediatoc_with_icons
Wikipediatoc_with_icons
Wikipediatoc_with_icons
Wikipediatoc_with_icons
WikipediaTodo
WikipediaTodo/to_do
WikipediaWontBlockMeImSpecial
Wikipedia_(canonization)
Wikipedia_(Interlanguage_link)
Wikipedia_-_Three-revert_rule.ogg
Wikipedia_1.0
Wikipedia_1.0
Wikipedia_1.0
Wikipedia_access_via_WAP
Wikipedia_access_via_WAP
Wikipedia_Addiction
Wikipedia_Admin
Wikipedia_Admin
Wikipedia_Administration
Wikipedia_Administration
Wikipedia_Administrator
Wikipedia_Administrator
Wikipedia_administrators
Wikipedia_ain't
Wikipedia_ain't_no
Wikipedia_AMA
Wikipedia_ambassador
Wikipedia_and_race
Wikipedia_and_Religion
Wikipedia_and_Religion
Wikipedia_Annoucements_February_2002
Wikipedia_Annoucements_January_2002
Wikipedia_Announcements
Wikipedia_Announcements
Wikipedia_Announcements/April_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/August_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/December_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/February_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/January_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/July_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/June_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/Larrys_Wedding_Card
Wikipedia_Announcements/March_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/May_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/November_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/October_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements/September_2001
Wikipedia_Announcements_April_2002
Wikipedia_announcements_archive
Wikipedia_Announcements_March_2002
Wikipedia_Announcements_May_2002
Wikipedia_approval_mechanism
Wikipedia_approval_mechanism
Wikipedia_approval_mechanism
Wikipedia_ArbCom_elections_archive
Wikipedia_Arbitration_Committee
Wikipedia_archives
Wikipedia_ARD_TagesSchau.jpg
Wikipedia_arranged_by_topic
Wikipedia_arranged_by_topic
Wikipedia_arranged_by_topic
Wikipedia_arranged_by_topic
Wikipedia_article
Wikipedia_articles_are_not
Wikipedia_articles_based_upon_websites
Wikipedia_articles_based_upon_websites
Wikipedia_articles_dealing_with_east_of_the_Oder-Neisse_Line_topics
Wikipedia_articles_dealing_with_topics_related_to_current_Polish_territories
Wikipedia_articles_dealing_with_topics_related_to_current_Polish_territories
Wikipedia_articles_dealing_with_topics_related_to_the_Oder-Neisse_Line
Wikipedia_articles_in_need_of_updating
Wikipedia_articles_needing_clarification
Wikipedia_articles_needing_context
Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit
Wikipedia_articles_needing_factual_verification
Wikipedia_articles_needing_factual_verification
Wikipedia_articles_needing_rewrite
Wikipedia_articles_needing_style_editing
Wikipedia_articles_needing_their_fiction_made_clear
Wikipedia_articles_of_dubious_importance
Wikipedia_articles_of_dubious_importance
Wikipedia_articles_per_population
Wikipedia_articles_per_population
Wikipedia_articles_per_population
Wikipedia_articles_per_population
Wikipedia_articles_that_are_too_technical
Wikipedia_articles_that_are_too_technical
Wikipedia_articles_that_might_be_vanity
Wikipedia_articles_that_need_translation
Wikipedia_articles_to_be_transwikied
Wikipedia_articles_which_could_be_improved_by_explaining_significance
Wikipedia_articles_with_nonstandard_pronunciation
Wikipedia_article_lists
Wikipedia_as_an_academic_source
Wikipedia_as_an_academic_source
Wikipedia_as_a_book_source
Wikipedia_as_a_book_source
Wikipedia_as_a_conference_paper_source
Wikipedia_as_a_court_source
Wikipedia_as_a_media_source
Wikipedia_as_a_media_topic
Wikipedia_as_a_news_source
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2004
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2004
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2005
Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2005
Wikipedia_as_a_source
Wikipedia_as_TomeRaider_database
Wikipedia_as_TomeRaider_database_-_download_instructions
Wikipedia_autorickshaw_pm..jpg
Wikipedia_awards
Wikipedia_awards
Wikipedia_backlog
Wikipedia_bad_jokes_and_other_undeleted_nonsense
Wikipedia_banners_and_logos
Wikipedia_banners_and_logos
Wikipedia_basic_information
Wikipedia_basic_information
Wikipedia_Bio_COTW_Nominees
Wikipedia_blows_chunks
Wikipedia_Bookmark.jpg
Wikipedia_bots
Wikipedia_bugs
Wikipedia_case_user:RK
Wikipedia_categories_in_need_of_attention
Wikipedia_categorization
Wikipedia_category_redirects
Wikipedia_category_schemes
Wikipedia_category_schemes
Wikipedia_Chat
Wikipedia_chat
Wikipedia_circa_1969.JPG
Wikipedia_cited_on_usenet
Wikipedia_cleanup
Wikipedia_cleanup_check
Wikipedia_cocktail_guide
Wikipedia_collaborations
Wikipedia_commentary/Making_fun_of_Britannica
Wikipedia_commentary/Making_fun_of_Britannica
Wikipedia_commentary/Project_Sourceberg
Wikipedia_commentary/Project_Sourceberg
Wikipedia_commentary/Responding_to_the_Critics
Wikipedia_commentary/Responding_to_the_Critics
Wikipedia_commentary/Search_Engine
Wikipedia_commentary/Search_Engine
Wikipedia_commentary/Wikipedia_quality
Wikipedia_commentary/Wikipedia_quality
Wikipedia_Commentary/Wiki_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_commentary/Wiki_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_Commons
Wikipedia_community
Wikipedia_community
Wikipedia_community_forums
Wikipedia_contains_spoilers
Wikipedia_contains_spoilers
Wikipedia_Cookbook
Wikipedia_Cookbook
Wikipedia_Copyright
Wikipedia_copyright
Wikipedia_copyright_issues
Wikipedia_copy_editing
Wikipedia_culture
Wikipedia_Day
Wikipedia_Day
Wikipedia_Day
Wikipedia_day
Wikipedia_Death_Penalty
Wikipedia_deletion
Wikipedia_disclaimers
Wikipedia_dispute_resolution
Wikipedia_does_not_give_legal_advice
Wikipedia_does_not_give_medical_advice
Wikipedia_downloads
Wikipedia_duplicate_articles
Wikipedia_Duplicate_pages
Wikipedia_DVD
Wikipedia_DVD
Wikipedia_DVD
Wikipedia_DVD
Wikipedia_DVD/Temp
Wikipedia_DVD/Temp
Wikipedia_DVD/Temp
Wikipedia_Embassy
Wikipedia_Energy_Directory_nosen_icon_hj85.jpg
Wikipedia_Energy_Directory_nosen_icon_hj85.jpg
Wikipedia_Entries_Alphabetical_Order
Wikipedia_essays
Wikipedia_Etiquette
Wikipedia_etiquette
Wikipedia_Fan
Wikipedia_fan_page
Wikipedia_fan_page
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_FAQ
Wikipedia_feature
Wikipedia_featured_articles
Wikipedia_featured_article_candidates
Wikipedia_featured_article_candidates_(contested)
Wikipedia_featured_article_removal_candidates
Wikipedia_featured_content
Wikipedia_featured_lists
Wikipedia_featured_list_candidates
Wikipedia_featured_list_candidates_(contested)
Wikipedia_featured_pictures
Wikipedia_featured_picture_candidates
Wikipedia_feature_request
Wikipedia_feature_requests
Wikipedia_fork
Wikipedia_Foundation
Wikipedia_functionaries
Wikipedia_game
Wikipedia_games
Wikipedia_goings_on
Wikipedia_gremlins
Wikipedia_gremlins
Wikipedia_guide
Wikipedia_guide
Wikipedia_guide
Wikipedia_guidelines
Wikipedia_guidelines
Wikipedia_hater
Wikipedia_Help
Wikipedia_help
Wikipedia_help_desk
Wikipedia_help_desk
Wikipedia_help_forums
Wikipedia_history
Wikipedia_History_standards
Wikipedia_History_standards
Wikipedia_Holidays
Wikipedia_Holidays
Wikipedia_how-to
Wikipedia_humor
Wikipedia_IFD
Wikipedia_illustrations
Wikipedia_image.JPG
Wikipedia_images
Wikipedia_images_by_topic
Wikipedia_images_by_type
Wikipedia_image_galleries
Wikipedia_image_galleries
Wikipedia_image_galleries_permissions
Wikipedia_image_help
Wikipedia_in_academia
Wikipedia_in_academic_studies
Wikipedia_in_academic_studies
Wikipedia_in_academic_studies
Wikipedia_in_academic_study
Wikipedia_in_blogs
Wikipedia_in_blogs
Wikipedia_in_books
Wikipedia_in_press_releases
Wikipedia_in_scientific_studies
Wikipedia_in_scientific_study
Wikipedia_in_the_media
Wikipedia_in_the_media
Wikipedia_in_the_media
Wikipedia_in_the_media
Wikipedia_in_the_news
Wikipedia_in_the_news
Wikipedia_in_the_press
Wikipedia_in_the_press
Wikipedia_IRC_Feed.JPG
Wikipedia_is
Wikipedia_isn't
Wikipedia_isnt
Wikipedia_is_Anarchism
Wikipedia_is_Anarchism
Wikipedia_is_Anarchism!
Wikipedia_is_Anarchism!
Wikipedia_is_an_MMORPG
Wikipedia_is_an_MMORPG
WIKIPEDIA_IS_COMMUNISM
WIKIPEDIA_IS_COMMUNISM
Wikipedia_Is_Communism
Wikipedia_Is_Communism
Wikipedia_is_Communism
Wikipedia_is_Communism
Wikipedia_is_Communism
Wikipedia_is_communism
Wikipedia_Is_Communism!
Wikipedia_Is_Communism!
Wikipedia_is_Communism!
Wikipedia_is_Communism!
Wikipedia_is_communism!
Wikipedia_is_communism!
Wikipedia_is_Democracy!
Wikipedia_is_Democracy!
Wikipedia_is_Fun
Wikipedia_is_Marxism
WIKIPEDIA_IS_MARXISM_SO_GET_THE_FUCK_OUTTA_HERE_DAMMIT
Wikipedia_is_Nazism
Wikipedia_is_Nazism
Wikipedia_is_not
Wikipedia_is_not
Wikipedia_is_not_an_advertisement_board
Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball
Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy
Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Wikipedia_is_not_a_mud_wrestling_pit
Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Wikipedia_is_not_a_usage_guide
Wikipedia_is_not_a_vanity_press
Wikipedia_is_not_a_vanity_press
Wikipedia_is_not_a_vanity_press
Wikipedia_is_not_a_vanity_press
Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory
Wikipedia_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_is_not_paper
Wikipedia_itself
Wikipedia_jimmy_wales_ars_electronica.jpg
Wikipedia_kerry.jpg
Wikipedia_logo_-_distorted_after_scrolling_page.JPG
Wikipedia_logs
Wikipedia_Lookup_Browser_Button
Wikipedia_Look_Browser_Button
Wikipedia_Look_Browser_Button
Wikipedia_Loves_Trolls
Wikipedia_mailing_list
Wikipedia_Maintenance
Wikipedia_maintenance
Wikipedia_maintenance
Wikipedia_maintenance
Wikipedia_maintenance
Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style
Wikipedia_mediation
Wikipedia_Mediawiki_custom_messages
Wikipedia_medicine_standards
Wikipedia_medicine_standards
Wikipedia_meta-pages
Wikipedia_meta_pages
Wikipedia_Milestone_satistics
Wikipedia_Militia
Wikipedia_mirror
Wikipedia_mirror
Wikipedia_mirrors
Wikipedia_missing_topics
Wikipedia_mouse_mat.jpg
Wikipedia_mug.jpg
Wikipedia_multilingual_coordination
Wikipedia_namespace
Wikipedia_naming_convention
Wikipedia_naming_conventions
Wikipedia_naming_conventions
Wikipedia_naming_convention_on_anglicization
Wikipedia_NEWS
Wikipedia_NEWS
Wikipedia_NEWS
Wikipedia_news
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_13_16_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_13_16_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_13_19_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_13_19_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_20_25_2001
Wikipedia_NEWS/June_20_25_2001
Wikipedia_new_articles
Wikipedia_No_personal_attacks.ogg
Wikipedia_official_policy
Wikipedia_official_policy
Wikipedia_OmniMusica
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_articles
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_candidates
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues_-_comprehensivity
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues_-_neutrality
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues_-_referencing
Wikipedia_OmniMusica_extant_issues_-_style
Wikipedia_on_TV_and_Radio
Wikipedia_on_TV_and_radio
Wikipedia_on_TV_and_radio
Wikipedia_pages_for_Wikimedia_projects
Wikipedia_Penn_Shield.jpg
Wikipedia_PHP_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_alt_main_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_main_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_mysql_sql_ddl
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_upload_script
Wikipedia_PHP_script/The_wiki_stylesheet
Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines
Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy
Wikipedia_policy/Blocked_IPs
Wikipedia_policy/Foul_Language
Wikipedia_policy/General_discussion
Wikipedia_policy/Layout_recommendations
Wikipedia_policy/Pages_which_have_been_permanently_deleted
Wikipedia_policy_on_charts
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_articles
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages
Wikipedia_press_release_1
Wikipedia_press_release_1
Wikipedia_press_release_1
Wikipedia_probation
Wikipedia_Prodject:Countries_Anthems
Wikipedia_Projects
Wikipedia_proposals
Wikipedia_Quality_Survey
Wikipedia_Quality_Survey
Wikipedia_quote_of_the_day
Wikipedia_real-world
Wikipedia_recent_additions
Wikipedia_refactor
Wikipedia_Reference_Desk_archive
Wikipedia_reference_desk_archive
Wikipedia_referrers
Wikipedia_rejected_policies
Wikipedia_rejected_policies
Wikipedia_requested_articles
Wikipedia_requested_articles
Wikipedia_requested_images
Wikipedia_requested_images
Wikipedia_requests
Wikipedia_resources_for_researchers
Wikipedia_Rich_List
Wikipedia_Sandbot
Wikipedia_Sandbox
Wikipedia_Sandbox
Wikipedia_scratchpad
Wikipedia_Searching
Wikipedia_semi-policy
Wikipedia_serious_cleanup
Wikipedia_Signpost
Wikipedia_Signpost
Wikipedia_Signpost
Wikipedia_Signpost/100
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/AMA_election
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/AMA_election
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Credibility
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Credibility
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Fundraiser
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Instapundit
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Portal
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Portal
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/QuakeAID
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/QuakeAID
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Speedy_deletion
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Top_100
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Top_100
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/Upgrade
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Celebrities
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Country_infoboxes
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Fvw
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/In_the_media
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Server_order
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-17/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Mediation_Committee
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/News_and_notes
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Nofollow_tag
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Nofollow_tag
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Performance_improvements
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Rave_Awards
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Speedy_deletion_expanded
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Taiwan_Encyclopedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Veja
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Veja
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Block_wars
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Heavy_metal_umlaut
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/New_features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Policy_proposals
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Tangshan_earthquake
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Tim_Starling
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Tim_Starling
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-31/Webcred_conference
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/500_featured_articles
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Advocacy_groups
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Encarta
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Main_page_protection
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Proxies
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Three-revert_rule
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Article_hoax
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Budget_and_contract
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Google_hosting
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Music_recordings
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Wikipedia_portal_redesign
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Wikiportals
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Feature_storm
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Fundraising_drive
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Gdansk_or_Danzig
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Googlepedia_column
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Harvard_coverage
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/NPR
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-21/Wired_feature
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28/Criticism_and_reaction
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28/Power_outage
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-28/Vertical_search
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Block_war_and_desysoping
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/FOSDEM
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Fundraiser_ended
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Gdansk_or_Danzig
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/NY_Times_archive
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/NY_Times_archive
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Peer_review_and_FAC
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Peer_review_and_FAC
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Wikipedia_citations
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Wikipedia_citations
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-07/Yahoo_anniversary
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Dispute_resolution_changes
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Guanaco_adminship
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Page_moves
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Page_moves
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Power_outage_redux
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Recycling_Troll
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Best_or_worst
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/CC-Wiki_license
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Conference_and_expo
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Database_disk_space
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Half-million_articles
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Half-million_articles
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Quarto
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-21/Top_admin_leaves
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/London_meetup
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/London_meetup
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/MediaWiki_progress
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/Prosecution_and_de-adminship
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/Return_of_stats
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-28/Wikiwax_index
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/April_Fool's_Day
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/April_Fool's_Day
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Arbitration_policy_revote
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Plagiarism_and_comedy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Plagiarism_and_comedy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Proxy_list
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Proxy_list
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-04/Syntax_standardization
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Dot-org_boom
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/DVD_releases
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/DVD_releases
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Encarta_editing
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Encarta_editing
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Privacy_policy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Speed_feature
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-11/Yahoo_support
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Andrea_Dworkin_death
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Andrea_Dworkin_death
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Encarta_elaborates
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Lucene_search
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Spoken_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Tax_exempt_status
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-18/Template_standardisation
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Papal_scoop
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/The_Sanger_memoirs
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-25/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-04-28
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Articles_and_features
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Commons_donation
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Directmedia_Publishing_releases_fine_art_images_under_the_GFDL
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Image_database_donated_to_Commons
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Reader_Portals
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Reader_Portals
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Wikimedia_elections
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Wikipedia_in_print
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-02/Wiki_press
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/Brockhaus_plagiarism_suspected
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-09/Meetings_and_events
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Board_meeting
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Image_uploading
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/MediaWiki_1.5
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Other_news_sources
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-16/Skanwiki_proposal
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Dating_system
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Dating_system
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/German_scandal
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Librarians_project
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Librarians_project
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Noncommercial_images
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Proceedings_of_Wikitech-l
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Proceedings_of_Wikitech-l
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Radio_show
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Radio_show
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Traffic_growth
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Wikijunior_needs_you!
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Foundation_official_positions
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Free_software_trophy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Free_software_trophy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Laotian_Rock_Rat
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Substubs_and_templates
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Vandal_fighter
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/Wikimedia_Board_election
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-30/WikiPrudence
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Content_arbitration
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Global_downtime
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Global_downtime
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Lists_and_rankings
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Lists_and_rankings
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Password_security
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Wales_meets_Brockhaus
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-06/Wales_meets_Brockhaus
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Apple_and_reputations
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/ESA_meeting
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Features,_removal,_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Features,_removal,_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/New_syntax_draft
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-13/Server_status
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/100_times_100
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Features_and_admins
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/In_the_news
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Podcasting_problems
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Wikimedia_elections
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Wikimedia_elections
Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-06-20/Wikitorials_and_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/About
Wikipedia_Signpost/AC
Wikipedia_Signpost/AC
Wikipedia_Signpost/AMA
Wikipedia_Signpost/AMA
Wikipedia_Signpost/Arbitration_report
Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives
Wikipedia_Signpost/Baou
Wikipedia_Signpost/Baou
Wikipedia_Signpost/Celebrities
Wikipedia_Signpost/Country_infoboxes
Wikipedia_Signpost/CSD
Wikipedia_Signpost/FAC
Wikipedia_Signpost/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/Features
Wikipedia_Signpost/Features_and_layout
Wikipedia_Signpost/Feedback
Wikipedia_Signpost/From_the_editor
Wikipedia_Signpost/FtE
Wikipedia_Signpost/FtE
Wikipedia_Signpost/Fvw
Wikipedia_Signpost/General_discussion
Wikipedia_Signpost/Insta
Wikipedia_Signpost/In_the_media
Wikipedia_Signpost/LS
Wikipedia_Signpost/LS
Wikipedia_Signpost/Mediation_Committee
Wikipedia_Signpost/MP
Wikipedia_Signpost/MP
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/April_25
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/May_2
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/May_9
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions
Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Template_standardisation
Wikipedia_Signpost/News_and_notes
Wikipedia_Signpost/Nofollow_tag
Wikipedia_Signpost/Nofollow_tag
Wikipedia_Signpost/Performance_improvements
Wikipedia_Signpost/Rave_Awards
Wikipedia_Signpost/RC
Wikipedia_Signpost/Server_order
Wikipedia_Signpost/Speedy_deletion_expanded
Wikipedia_Signpost/Suggestions
Wikipedia_Signpost/Suggestions
Wikipedia_Signpost/Taiwan_Encyclopedia
Wikipedia_Signpost/TC
Wikipedia_Signpost/Veja
Wikipedia_Signpost/Veja
Wikipedia_Signpost/WF
Wikipedia_Signpost/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost/Writing_contest
Wikipedia_Signpost_archives
WIkipedia_Software
Wikipedia_Software
Wikipedia_software
Wikipedia_sources
Wikipedia_spoken_articles
Wikipedia_Spoken_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_statistics
Wikipedia_statistics
Wikipedia_statistics
Wikipedia_statistics/Referrers
Wikipedia_statistics/Size_of_Wikipedia
Wikipedia_statistics/What_Google_likes
Wikipedia_Status
Wikipedia_status
Wikipedia_structures.jpg
Wikipedia_structures_edited.jpg
Wikipedia_stubs
Wikipedia_style_and_how-to
Wikipedia_style_and_how-to
Wikipedia_style_guidelines
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons/Evaluation
Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons/Evaluation
Wikipedia_Sucks
Wikipedia_syntax_and_templates.TCL
Wikipedia_teamwork
Wikipedia_teamwork
Wikipedia_templates
Wikipedia_thong.jpg
Wikipedia_thong.jpg
Wikipedia_thumbs_down.jpg
Wikipedia_traffic
Wikipedia_translation
Wikipedia_Tree_of_Life/Update_of_the_Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group
Wikipedia_Tree_of_Life/Update_of_the_Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_1
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_2
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_2
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_3
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_3
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_4
Wikipedia_Trivia_Part_1/Answer_4
Wikipedia_tutorial
Wikipedia_tutorial
Wikipedia_tutorial
Wikipedia_UK_CotW_Nominees
Wikipedia_unofficial_policy
Wikipedia_usage
Wikipedia_Users
Wikipedia_user_dma.jpg
Wikipedia_Utilities
Wikipedia_utilities
Wikipedia_utilities
Wikipedia_utilities/Controversial_subjects
Wikipedia_utilities/Controversial_subjects_Talk
Wikipedia_utilities/Deleted_page_titles
Wikipedia_utilities/Navigation_links
Wikipedia_utilities/Old_Page_titles_to_be_deleted_talk
Wikipedia_utilities/Old_Page_titles_to_be_deleted_talk
Wikipedia_utilities/Pages_needing_attention
Wikipedia_utilities/Pages_to_be_rewritten_or_deleted
Wikipedia_utilities/Page_titles_to_be_deleted
Wikipedia_utilities/Page_titles_to_be_deleted
Wikipedia_utilities/Page_titles_to_be_deleted_Talk
Wikipedia_utilities/Page_titles_which_have_been_deleted
Wikipedia_utilities/Personal_subpages_to_be_deleted
Wikipedia_vandal
Wikipedia_vandalism
Wikipedia_vandalism_archive
Wikipedia_Village_Pump
Wikipedia_Volunteer_Fire_Department
Wikipedia_weeding
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
