WikiPedians

#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Wikipedians

Wikipedians

Wikipedians

Obsolete talk is at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians/old. ---- What is a 'confessed contributor'? Notice I have 'stubbed' this term, so that if we continue to use it at the top of the Wikipedians page, people can find out what it means in the following: "There are currently more than 700 confessed contributors (although there are over 10,000 user accounts and an unknown number of anonymous contributors)." Is a 'confessed contributor' someone who responded to the following by assuming that the author intended them to modify this page to include a link to their user page, as in the following?: "Here is a list of all the contributors who have put their name on this list." Another comment which seems to share the 'implicitude' of the above is: "There are no particular requirements for Wikipedians' personal pages; some people write up bios, some don't" Does the above imply that those that don't are not one of the 700 confessed contributors but instead are one of the 10,000 'user accounts'? Is a mere 'user account' not really a 'True Wikipedian'? I would like to see a 'How to become a Wikipedian' link (which explicitly demarcates Wikipedians and such 'perhaps not Wikipedians' as anonymous contributors or non-contributing 'regular lurkers') placed somewhere prominent, otherwise some may inevitably become suspicious that the term is some elitist notion retricted to an inner clique who(mistakenly?) treat the mere 'user accounts' as being viewed as some kind of 'riff-raff'. --user:ericross --- I understand that this page is listed as a Wikipedia entry, but I think it should still be linked to from at least "special pages" and certainly from "registered users". --user:jaknouse ----- I think this should be in the Wikipedia namespace and have a title suitable for a list instead of a plural article. For example: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians :Yes it should be in the wikipedia namespace but there is no need for a "List of" title since that is only needed for the article namespace to differentiate between Almanac-like articles from encyclopedia articles. Naming conventions for articles do not apply to non-articles. A non-article being; anything in the talk, user, special, or wikipedia namespace or anything that should be in one of those namespaces (blank and junk pages are also not articles; just pages). Hum, somebody really does need to write wikipedia:articles to explain this. --User:Maveric149 10:10 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT) ----- In addition to the nationalities, how about Wikipedians/Queer, Wikipedians/Neopagan, etc.? — User:Montrealais Sounds good to me. We could have Wikipedians organised by subcultural affiliation, and by religion. In that vein, I'd suggest making Wikipedians itself a fairly short page, with links to the different ways that we are organised (so far by country, by name, and by date of arrival). — User:Toby Bartels 18:37 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT) I think that Lir, before being booted, made a good point about categorizing wikipedians into subcultural groups, even voluntarily. As you may or may not know, he started an "anti-american users" page, which was rapidly condemned by the community for inspiring an "us versus them" mentality. He (or she, I don't know) countered by saying that there is no reason queer or vegetarian wikipedians can have a page while anti-american ones cannot. That is a good point, and I hope everyone can see that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or discussion group or place to meet friends. There is no reason to organize wikipedians into categories at all. It only serves to create an "us versus them" mentality. An anti-american users page may might inflammatory, but what about the queer wikipedians page? Isn't that inflammatory to everyone who feels that homosexuality is wrong? Doesn't that create divisions that aren't necessary? And the vegetarians page too: the vast majority of vegetarians abstain from meat and animal by-products because they have a moral objection and consider it tantamount to murder. Thus, we can conclude that almost every person listed on that page considers me and every other meat-eater here a murderer or an accessory to murder, or at least someone with an underdeveloped moral sense. What I am trying to say is, all these groupings are pointless and detrimental to wikipedia. It doesn't matter what "sub-cultural affliations" any of us have. All that matters is that we all edit and write using a NPOV and providing correct information. If, however, everyone feels a burning need to have these divisions, then we should allow them all, not just ones that people approve of.--Anon :Nicely put. I agree that the these groupings should not be in en.wiki. However, meta.wiki is a "forum or discussion group or place to meet friends" so these groupings should go there. --User:Maveric149 23:05 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC) I agree with this (as has been done). I would also argue that divisions by country (and State within the US) are equally irrelevant to the encyclopædic purpose and should also go to meta. — User:Toby Bartels 18:13 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC) ::I think you forget that while voluntary categorization may lead to division between the groups, it also encourages unity within them. The "us versus them" divisions already exist. Not allowing people who might take sides to say which side they are on doesn't do anybody any favors. On the other hand, the self-categorization could provide information on what biases Wikipedia may have (despite the effort to be NPOV). I'd also question the factual accuracy of your statements about vegetarians, but this is a talk article so there's little point. --anonymous(2), US citizen, vegetarian, single, artistic appreciator; Aug 16, 2004. ---- I have a mind to chop the A to Z list of Wikipedians into an alphabetized list in a similar manner to Wikipedia:Multiple-place names. I will not start for a few days (weeks) to allow others to comment/object/discuss. - User:Gaz - 14:36 02-Mar-2003 UTC :IMO the long list is fine and should scale for at least the next thousand users added. Having everything in one list makes it easy to see just how many confessed Wikipedian's there are. --User:Maveric149 ------ Could the list by alphabetical order be moved to another page ? the page is over 30k. Soon, it will suffer damage. Anthere : an alternative would be to ruthlessly cut people who haven't edited for several months... User:MyRedDice :: Argh! We can't just consign them to oblivion... How about moving them to a nice new page - Wikipedia:list of old Wikipedians, or something along those lines? -- User:Oliver Pereira 02:28 3 Jun 2003 (UTC) :::I like this idea better. Removing history is not something I approve generally :-) ant ::: Well, Michael has been calling me "old man" in his edit summaries lately.... ;) Seriously though, that does look like it would cause some confusion as to just which way "old" was meant. Perhaps something more like Wikipedia:List of retired Wikipedians? Hmm, no, same problem there. But you get the idea. -- User:JohnOwens 16:32 3 Jun 2003 (UTC) :::: I think this is a really bad idea, I've noticed at least 3-4 users who continued contributing after a pause of 6 months and more. You can't just "retire" them!, it will be like "firing them" (geez, don't remind me the Michaelish connotation...) :) -- User:Rotem Dan 16:40 3 Jun 2003 (UTC) : Good points all - I retract the suggestion :) User:MyRedDice 20:23 3 Jun 2003 (UTC) ----- Why are United Kingdom *and* Scotland (but not En,Wa,NI) on there? I'm all for Billy Bragg (using the individual countries, not the union), but can we decide one way or another? --User:Steinsky 19:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC) ----- I'm going to split the China listing to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Mainland China, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Hong Kong, etc. so Taiwanese Wikipedians dont have to pick a list or list twice. This eliminates the need to reveal one's POV. --User:Jiang 02:17, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC) ----- Should I move "Puerto Rico" next to the United States listing, since Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the U.S. User:WhisperToMe 06:30, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC) ----- Would it be possible to make the Special:Listusers page a bit more navigable? Either by having an alphabetical index (a-z) or allowing the first couple of letters to be entered and jumped to? At the moment it is pretty useless due to the huge number of users. How, for example, could I browse users beginning with T without having to click 'next' many many times? -- User:HappyDog 14:15, 01 Dec 2003 (GMT) :How can I browse users beginning with 'T' at all? I have found it impossible to get past 'P'. It's broken! --anonymous(2) ---- why do certain users get gigantic fancy wikipedia space to put their retarded 'about me' pages? is this really appropriate for an encyclopedia? i dont think so. :To answer your rudely phrased question, all users may have user pages, there are certain restrictions on what may be placed there, and it is very appropriate for an encyclopedia to allow its editors to identify themselves for the purpose of more meaningful collaboration. I am sorry that you were not aware of this, and hope you will be a little kinder when asking questions in future. User:Jwrosenzweig 19:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- Since Scotland has been added as a separate category from the UK I have added England as a separate category too. If the world cup thinks the countries are Scotland, England, Wales and NI separately then so should WikiPedia --user talk:BozMoUser:BozMo 20:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC) ---- Does NPOV apply to stuff like this? someone removed the link to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World_Citizen citing NPOV over the head of a consensus on the VFD discussion for that page --User:Random832|User talk:Random832 02:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) : Consensus was to keep... so... -- User:SS 02:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- Is there a list of Wikipedia articles about individual Wikipedians? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 20:23, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) ---- Why are all the countries listed on this page, yet all other listings have their sub-sections on a separate page? To keep with standardization, should we move all the country names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians by region and have a link that says "Wikipedia:Wikipedians by region" like we do for the other listings? — User:Asbestos | Talk">User talk:Asbestos 08:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---- How about making the list of Wikipedians by language? I made the list in Japanese. See :ja:Wikipedia:言語別のウィキペディアン一覧. I think that it will be useful. User:Enirac Sum 17:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians

Wikipedia:Wikipedians Wikipedia vi:Category:Th�nh vi�n Wikipedia th:Category:ชาววิกิพีเดีย

Wikipedians

#redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedians

Wikipedians

#REDIRECT Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians (old)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

W