Wikipedia:Village pump archive 2004-09-26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snoyes (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 9 January 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]


Post a question or make a comment now if you don't want to wait for the whole page to be loaded. But consider skimming to see if your question was already asked. Also, do not push the "save page" button multiple times when posting this way! Even if the server temporarily slows down it will almost always respond eventually and repeatedly pressing "save" will then post the question to the page as many times as you pressed "save"!

Related pages: Mailing lists - IRC - IM a Wikipedian - Talk pages - Wikipedia talk:Software updates

File:Village pump yellow.png

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is where Wikipedians raise and try to answer Wikipedia-related questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies, and operation in our community. However:

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

  1. Place your questions at the bottom of the list
  2. Title the question (by typing == title ==)
    • If you use the edit link above, just enter a subject.
  3. Sign your name and date (by typing --~~~~)

See also: Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:Help, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Moved discussion

Questions and answers, after a period of time of inactivity, will be moved to other relevant sections of the wikipedia (such as the FAQ pages), placed in the Wikipedia:Village pump archive (if it is of general interest), or deleted (if it has no long-term value).

See the archive for older moved discussion links. For the most recent moved discussion, see Wikipedia:Village pump archive#January 2004 moved discussion.

Requests for help and comments

  1. Daniel's redirect project still needs your help with fixing thousands of broken links
  2. Muriel Victoria and Bmills urge you to vote at Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose
  3. mav invites you to discuss expanding the focus of the Sep11Wiki at meta:Wikimorial
  4. Jiang requests comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries
  5. Adam suggests every American Wikipedian visits List of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and contributes a short biography of their local Congress-person (see also public domain congressional biographical directory)
  6. Dysprosia requests comments on the new login text
  7. Viajero asks for your help in expanding the Guidelines for controversial articles
  8. moink wants help with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics.
  9. Gentgeen has started Wikipedia:WikiProject Games.
  10. Use {{msg:inuse}} to avoid edit conflicts. See MediaWiki talk:Inuse
  11. Eloquence requests feedback and comments on the changes to the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial
  12. Jmabel wants help with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups (see especially the talk page).


Vietnamese casualties, Vietnam War``

Can anyone tell me the number of Vietnamese dead and woundded from 1965-1973 (the Vietnam War) and cite source and page number?

Murray Polner buber@optonline.net

  • Vietnam War#Casualties - The lowest casualty estimates, based on North Vietnamese statements which are now discounted by Vietnam, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged. It is unclear how many Vietnamese were wounded in the war. --Raul654 15:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Other extensions?

- Do we own and non .com, .org extensions? We should buy up any major ones, like ca, de, uk, all those, just so we don't have spammers buying them and gaining money from our name. -- user:zanimum

We have a few but they're expensive. A number of Wikipedians have bought the relevant domain in their own country and donated it (or provided it for use) to Wikimedia. -- Tim Starling 03:46, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia guide to the See also lists

A question was posed in Talk:Microsoft_.NET concerning whether it is appropriate to have links in a "See also" list that are already in the body of an article. I did some searching in the Style Guides, but couldn't find a clear answer to the question there (it was mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#See also and Related topics styles but was mixed with the topic of "When articles are short and don't have headers..." Is there a clear Wikipedia Style Guide entry to cover this? If not, what should it say? Bevo 17:15, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a rule, but i'd imagine that if a link is already in the article, then it isn't a see also. Adding any link twice in one article is a bit like overkill, IMHO. Bmills 17:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What about if a page is linked as part of a natural sentence, but also should go in 'see also'? E.g. "John Doe's father suffered from paranoia, which had a large influence on young Doe." and then later a link to 'See also: paranoia', if Doe had done some studies in that field? (Yes I suck at giving examples) — Jor 18:46, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
I would (and do) include a link in the text and in the see-also section, when it is a rather long text and when the link links to something really relevant for the page. -- till we *) 18:52, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
In order to provide an example, can you cite an existing Wikipedia article where this dual linkage is in effect? Bevo 19:30, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at Artificial script for a short example: conlang is linked both as linktext, and under 'see also'. Short example still (the article needs expanding), but proves the point. — Jor 20:17, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
One example could be The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the section is Related Articles), another Sociology. Probably not the best examples ... -- till we *) 20:26, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
Here's an example: fluid dynamics. Many links at the end, and a good number of them (e.g. Mach number, Reynolds number) are already linked in the text. I think it works; if someone insists on changing it I'll have to make a list of fluid dynamics topics. moink 20:36, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The answer is no and no. I think we're told not to link the same thing mutiple times. --Jiang 22:21, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I thought so too. I just can't find a definitive statement today saying so in the Wikipedia Style guides I've reread. Bevo 22:41, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please tell us what to do in cases where what we're told is wrong. Specifically, people are making arguments here on a case-by-case basis, which I don't think can be entirely dismissed just by asserting a blanket ban. That said, "see also" does rather suggest a list of things which haven't been mentioned yet, and something which has been linked to has in particular been mentioned. "Related articles" might be better in such cases. Onebyone 22:55, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not answering OneByone's question, but I'd say that there are some circumstances where it's perfectly appropriate to have duplicate links, even in the "body" of the article. For example:
  • In a long article with multiple sections, someone may very likely skip an entire section to get to what they're interested in. Why make them search for a link?
  • It's almost a necessity in "chronology of" or "year" artilces. Take 2003 as an example. Supreme Court of the United States is linked numerous times -- and it should be. It would be worse than pointless to force someone to search in January for a link related to something that happened in December.
That being said, it certainly is possible to put in too many links. However, I'd hate to see a blanket prohibition.
Perhaps what would help is an automatic list (similar to "what links here") that shows all the links away from a page, preferably using the text as it appears in the article. -Anthropos 23:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I like that idea. WormRunner 04:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's not a blanket ban or prohibition. The manual of style states that its edicts are not in any way mandatory and that flexibility should be allowed. I personally add duplicate links within the text for long articles (provided these duplicates are spaced far apart). It's just a suggestion... --Jiang 00:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Right. The present discussion is just about the "See also" list of links, not links in general. To me, the word "also" strongly implies that the link has not already been used within the article. I see that Wikipedia:Manual of Style now has some unambiguous suggestion regarding the content of the "See also" lists. Bevo 04:07, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Inline links are good but I might duplicate some with See Also entries where a particular topic is worth highlighting as of particular interest. I can't think of a case where I've done this, though... Jamesday 08:50, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd consider "See also" to be completely different from "Related articles". "Related articles" can have links that have already been mentioned in the article. "See also" should not duplicate the links. There need to be policy distinguishing these two terms and their usages. Or there should be a convention that the terms can be used inter-changeably. Jay 16:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your concept for "Related articles" is pretty much automated by the "What links here" button at the bottom of every page. Maybe at some time the Wikipedia gods can construct an option to embed a map to the "What links here" list in the article itself (kind of like the option to display the Table of Contents). Bevo 16:53, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
May I just say "Nooooo!" at this point? What you say is true literally, articles which link to my article must be related in some sense. However, there is a difference between all articles which feel like linking, because something they mention is somewhat related, and those articles which a human being has specifically selected as being of particular significance to those interested in this topic. For example, you might well link to USA from the article of every single city in the country, but a "related topics" list for the USA which included every single city would not serve the same purpose as the one which is actually there. Onebyone 17:19, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Good points! Just brainstorming at little bit too far afield! Bevo 17:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re your query about the artificial script article and the linked conlang, you really don't need two links to the same article. Especially, in this case where you have a redirect from conlang to constructed language anyway, why would you want two links to conlang?. If you feel the "see also" gives it more emphasis, then just use that one only. --Dieter Simon 00:10, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Socialism

Someone please revert the edit Ed Poor made to Socialism while protected. --Wik 17:49, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Socialism was unprotected by Eloquence about three minutes ago. -- Cyan 18:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As soon as I read that, the words "And they're off" comes to mind :) --Raul654 21:41, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RMS Lusitania rewrite?

Apparently RMS Lusitania is an ancient copyright violation that's since been wikified and edited heavily, but still largely resembles the copyrighted text. See Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements#December 23 for more. Is someone knowledgeable willing to rewrite the article, salvaging any non-coypvio text if possible? At the very least the image ought to be out of copyright, and some of the text may be. --Delirium 23:20, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comparing the texts, this one needs a complete rewrite even if it includes the same facts. Way too much in common at the moment - I'd remove almost all but the first paragraph, image and vital statistics as infringing... Jamesday 09:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I really think the wikipedia page link system could be improved.

I have recently written an article which made reference to the peasants revolt

I have to try about 8 variations before I hit upon the correct version - or do I mean the way that was choosen by whoever set the page up first. most of the variations were caused by capitization.


i had similar difficulty with references to Henry VI part 1 and King Henry VI

and difficulties to describe a put name

is the pub the George or the George or The George

The point being most of these are tedious difficulties which should really be automatically dealt with

i.e. can't the engine be told to ignore (the's a's an's) etc. at the beginning of a link

can't it be told to ignore capitals (I know this is a unix thing but unix is wrong in human terms, in a search in a dictionary capitals are irrelevant.)

  • I partly agree. Why are links case-sensitive? There should never actually be two articles at the same location differing only in case, so links should be case-insensitive. Articles themselves could continue to reside at case-sensitive locations. --Delirium 09:22, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • The situation where you might reasonably have articles differing only in case is where one is a word and the other an acronym. But disambiguation could always be used to deal with these cases if article names were case insensitive (as I think they should be - not just linking, but the names themselves). Onebyone 11:19, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, wrong. It is perfectly OK to have Quantum Leap and quantum leap as separate articles. Captialization tells the reader that one is a proper name and one is a common term. Newbie should see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --mav 11:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It's perfectly OK, but it isn't necessary since if we didn't have case sensitivity, those two would just be disambiguated. The question, then, is whether the advantage of disambiguating by case alone is worth the problems caused by case-only errors. Onebyone 16:24, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I think it is. Redirects should be made to make linking in the above cases easier. True, there are problems with the current system, but I don't think case insensitivity will solve them. We follow normal English capitalization rules, so I don't see why there should be any more than minor problems resulting from case sensitivity. I also disagree with the suggestion that the software should ignore grammatical articles (e.g. the) at the beginning of titles -- this would then require moving The Animals to The Animals, a far less than ideal title because it is disambiguated and means that The Animals would redirect to animal, and no one would ever link to The Animals in an attempt to link to the article on animals. Tuf-Kat 18:40, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it's "wrong", mav. I do not think it's "perfectly okay" to have Quantum Leap and quantum leap. In fact, this is a terrible idea. People often search in lowercase in the search bar, in which case they get the wrong one; search-engines are case-insensitive; etc.; etc. It's a much better solution to have quantum leap and quantum leap (tv show) and have everything case-insensitive. --Delirium 01:16, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • The information entries should be Quantum Leap and quantum leap. Don't confuse the information with metadata, the information which describes the information. The software should present the metadata in an appropriate manner, such as having case-insensitive searching, automatically inserting "see also" links, and showing such items reasonably in browsing screens. Indicating that Quantum Leap is a show by means of capitalization is actually overloading the character set for a non-text use. There should be different markers (keywords?) for the meanings of the phrase. Capitalization does not suggest thirtysomething was something. SEWilco 09:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How to disambig people with the same name?

An article which I recently rewrote, Racak incident, includes a link (carried over from the previous version of the article) to William Walker. This turns out to be an article about a 19th century American rather than the present Ambassador William Walker. How do you disambig two separate people with the same name? -- ChrisO 11:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I had this problem with Robert Kelly (poet). My inelegant solution is kind of self-evident. Bmills 12:50, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bmills is exactly right. In the case of people with the same name, you either seperate them based on middle name or occupation. --Raul654 13:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And link on top of the more famous William Walter ''Alternate meaning: [[William Walker (diplomat)]]''. --Jiang 01:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reusing image of one language in other

I wanted to add image of Shirin Ebadi to the Tamil version சிரின் எபாடி. As the image is already in English version, I don't want to re-upload it for the Tamil version. Could anyone tell me the syntax for reusing the image of English verion in Tamil version --- Rrjanbiah 12:36, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, currently you have to upload it again. There is some discussion on Meta about the pros/cons of a (maybe additional) central image repository, as many images are language-independent. andy 13:11, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, but... I could see almost all other language versions are resusing the images without uploading it again. For example, you may visit தேசியக் கொடிகளின் பட்டியல் to see how they have reused the images of English version. Do you think, it's wrong?Rrjanbiah 04:24, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Do remember to add interwiki links to both versions, in case it is suspected/discovered to be a copyvio. --Jiang 00:59, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jia, I couldn't get your point about "copyvio". Could you please elaborate why interwiki link is necessary? Rrjanbiah 04:24, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If another language wiki discovers that this image is a copyright violation, they'll be able to track down the image elsewhere on wikipedia and have those images deleted. If we suspect that image to be a copyright violation here, we'll have a link to where it came from, so we can ask the user from the other language wp where he d/l'd it. --Jiang 04:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tilde

Hi, this is User:Optim. I just discovered that I cannot sign my posts with the fou tildes when I am using my new laptop. It has an Italian keyboard, and AFAIK there is no way to type the tilde without using some software or ascii code. Yes, really the italian keyboard has no tilde key, and it is not the only key that is missing. is there any HTML code I can use to type the tilde? does MediaWiki support another way to sign, without using the tilde? if some Italian is reading this, I would appreciate it if you could tell me how I can type the tilde with italian keyboards. thanks, Optim

You could cut'n'paste this: ~~~~ -- Finlay McWalter 15:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
or (if you're running windows): hold down ALT and type 126 on the numeric keypad (not so easy on laptops) -- Finlay McWalter 15:47, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC) If that doesn't work ALT 007e might work (probably won't though) theresa knott 15:50, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've just had another idea - If you have Word you can go to insert them symbol, find the tild and click on the shortcut key. Here you can customise the keyboardb to make say ALT t print a tilde. theresa knott 15:54, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
or you could just set the keymap your familiar with, and magic-marker the keyboard. -- Finlay McWalter 16:03, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you all for your useful replies! I decided to use Fn+Alt+126. BTW what's the code for ` ? Thank you very much and Best Wishes for Peace Profound ...Optim 18:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You can use the numbers from This table -- Finlay McWalter 18:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thank you Optim 19:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Change the keyboard layout from "Italian" to "Italian (142)". This only moves the €[]@#{} keys around (used with right-alt), and makes the ~` keys available. To get the keys at the new location, type Right-alt+3/5/7/8/9/0/q/e/+/ù for #/€/{/[/]/}/@/€/~/`, respectively. Κσυπ Cyp   00:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Interpreter Application for Windows?

Is there any? I have been having problems accesing the website ultimately (hint: announcements & server status), and lost a few articles because I forgot to save them up in a TXT file while trying to get a preview of them. C'mon, it shouldn't be that hard to develop! :p

- Maio 18:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If I understand well you want a software application that can translate Wiki-code to HTML (that is, '''Bold''' to Bold). After you get the HTML code in a file you will be able to preview it with any web browser. I could develop this software in VB.NET, Java or C, after my exams if I have time. Leave a comment on my talk page so that I will remember you when/if I build something and inform you. But dont expect something before I finish with my exams (25th January) Optim 18:55, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is something frequently discussed on the mailing lists and once or twice here too. I think there are about half a dozen half finished interpreters in Java, Python, C et cetera. None of them usable. Of course if Wikipedia was XML everyone could have a copy of the stylesheets and offline translations would be a piece of cake... CGS 20:46, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC).
A failed browser connection should not cause you to lose the article. Just hit the "back" button, and your browser will show the text in the textbox again (at least, this is what happens in my Opera 6). Alfio 23:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
IE loses the text (unless you have done preview). Mozilla doesn't. Secretlondon 23:38, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
I used to use IE on a Mac, and it kept the text if I pressed "back", though I know IE on a Windows at my old school library lost it. Tuf-Kat 04:35, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Magnus Manske has written one in C++, for Windows. It's called "Waikiki". It seems to basically work. Originally there was a binary distribution available, but I think that's offline now. The source code is in sourceforge cvs, see [1]. -- Tim Starling 02:25, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Whenever I'm aware that I've typed into a browser's edit window for more than about five minutes, I do a "select all" and a "copy." Then when I press the action button ("save page" and "show preview" in the case of Wikipedia) and notice an ominous pause, I usually have the presence of mind to bring up a text editor and do a "paste." I don't say this is the best solution. I don't say this is a substitute for a powerful Wikipedia server, or a browser that works properly (Safari seems to), or an offline WIkitext renderer. I don't say it always works for me. I just say it's what I do. It's also an observation of mine that when I "lose" an hour's work due to a text editor crash or whatever, it really only takes about ten minutes to redo it—and, despite Ellen Feiss, the result is usually better (it basically enforces one more rewrite). Again, that doesn't mean that server or application crashes are actually a blessing in disguise; I'm just saying that the loss usually isn't as big as it seems in that first horrifying moment. Dpbsmith 02:40, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


HMS Illustrious

As I was going through wiki, I noticed that we have an article on HMS Illustrious, which is essentially an overinflated disambig page. However, some pages link to the different forms of the ship's name (Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier). Certainly, we have lots of pages for individual ships. So do we move the entry on the Illustrious page to the specific page, or do we leave it as-is? --Raul654 03:41, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd say leave it. There are certainly individual pages for the current Invincible class, but the current Illustrious page is more than a glorified disambiguation page for the earlier ships. I note that it contains consolidated battle honours for all the ships. -- Arwel 13:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Manned mission to Mars

Just saw this on slashdot - Bush to Announce New Missions to Moon, Mars. Think it deserves a place on the main page, but I wouldn't know what article to link to. But it's great news nonetheless --Raul654 05:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd wait till you actually does that announcement. A lot of media already expected the same for the centennial of the Kitty Hawk flight, but he said nothing in his speech then. And I guess he will announce a return to moon, and more unmanned Mars exploration, with the long term goal of a manned Mars mission, not a manned Mars mission directly. But don't forget his father also announced a return to moon plan, and nothing happened. andy

Tamil Wiki - language issues

I could see that the Tamil Wiki found at http://ta.wikipedia.org used some hard/old Tamil words. Personally I think, only few Tamilians can follow the articles easily. It seems that they've tried to find some new words for non-existing Tamil words; and I think, for such words it is better to go for "transcription" than "translation". But, I could also see that English Wiki has also "simple" version. So... my question is: Is it Ok to use such hard/odd words especially in Tamil Wiki?--Rrjanbiah 05:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


You might want to contact the person that did the translation: m:LanguageTa.php. Some messages may be fixed by editing these: ta:Wikipedia:All messages, but you have to be an admin, for that you might want to leave Brion a message here: m:User:Brion VIBBER/Todo list. hth, Dori | Talk 05:49, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
It is a matter best discussed by literate Tamilians. Such language/culture-specific policies, as opposed to the fundamentals of Wikipediaism, should be left to be devised by the native speakers. The English WP has no control over the Tamil language. Though it may be the case that the majority of the English speakers agrees to use "simple" version in some of its articles, by no mean should it be what the Tamilians obey as well without question.
The general idea is that our encyclopedias should be understood by most literate native speakers (sure, there are always some who cannot). I assume that the original author of those Tamil articles you spoke of is a native Tamilian as well? Perhaps such matter is better discussed with him, with opinions of other native Tamilian Wikipedians. Autonomy is a good thing, since our experience is uniquely English and cannot dictate yours, as it may not apply. Be Wiki, be free. --Menchi (Talk)â 05:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)‪
As I am the one who either translate or wrote fresh most of the articles found in the Tamil Wiki, I like to clarify certain issues relevant to languages like Tamil. Tamil is a very old Language with an impressive array of litterature to its credit. However, it is fairly weak in expressing modern knowledge, as it always have to create new words to cope up with the fast growing knowledge base. It is obvious that many of these words will take time to be accepted and go into wider circulation. This process is very slow due to the fact that for the vast majority of the world Tamil population who live in Tamilnadu, India, the medium of education is English not Tamil. However the situation in Srilanka where the native Tamil speakers are comparatively small in numbers, technical words related to modern knowledge are understood better as the medium of instruction for them in school is Tamil. The lack of co-ordination between Indian and Sri Lankan Tamil scholars in creating new technical words also affects the widespread understanding of tamil words.
I am a native Tamil speaker from Sri Lanka, who had my education in Tamil medium. I do not think this fact pause a serious problem in communicating to Indian Tamils in Tamil. I do not deny that my style of Language and translation too had caused concern to Rrjanbiah. It is a problem only because, at the moment I am the one who contributed or translated more than 80% of the 80+ articles in Tamil Wiki. I am sure More and more people, particularly from Tamilnadu will get involved as contributors and solve this problem. --Mayooranathan 07:28, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is not about criticism or lack of coordination or rant. This is the concern about the useful nature of Wiki. My question was: Is it ok to use such hard words in Wiki according to Wiki ethics? As you said, we can improve it when many people join this venture. -- Rrjanbiah 08:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In that case, I'd say that the answer is yes, you can use hard words. Someone else can always come along and explain what the hard word means if they think it is too difficult for too many readers. Onebyone 10:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reliable?

Is this site entirely reliable for research purposes? Meaning the content is reviewed and checked before accepted, or can any moron out there just write some BS about the topic and put it up?

Anyone can write anything, and anyone else can (and usually does) correct or remove the incorrect info. Dori | Talk 06:39, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
There is junk here, but there is junk in all textbooks, no matter how good. Wikipedia has the advantage that the disagreements are out in the open. If you want to do research, read the article and then the talk pages. And make corrections if you see something wrong. WormRunner 06:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For each subject area, some authors are better than others. Like anything else on the Internet, YOU have to evaluate how reliable an author is...Pollinator 06:48, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Factual errors do get into articles. The articles are reviewed by non-experts, so subtle details (especially in the more technical articles) may be incorrect. That said, errors can creep into even "reliable" sources like Britannica (See Making fun of Britannica). Wikipedia has a quantity-oriented mentality - you'll find a vastly more information here than you would in a paper encyclopedia --Raul654 06:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Downloading Wikipedia

I am an avid user of Wikipedia. I use it regularly on my laptop. The problem is I am not always connected to the internet. Therefore I would like to be able to download a local copy to my laptop for use when offline. Is this legal ? Is it possible by using apropriate software ? (I have used HT Track to do similar tasks before). I will of course keep on using the online version when possible :-) 

        Frode, Norway
See Database download. A Website Sider/Grabber like HTTrack is too heavy on the servers,don't use it. There are some older static-html dumps,but only up to date database-dumps. Martijn 14:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Refreshing Brilliant Prose Voting Deadline and Proposal

It's time to put this to bed. I propose starting the work of removing articles from Wikipedia:Brilliant prose that have been voted off. But we need to agree a voting outcome, or set of outcomes. Here's what I propose for now:

  • Articles with Keep votes and No remove votes remain
  • Articles with a majority of Removes go.

Articles with one or more Removes but a majority of Keeps go to Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates under the heading Nominations after voting. Users who voted remove (or anyone else) will have one week to lodge specific objections. If no objections are forthcoming, articles will be restored to BP at the end of that week. If objections are raised, the article will go through due process.

I await a flood of better ideas. Bmills 13:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

State of Wikipedia

I'm worried about wikipedia. It seems to have become a hostile environment. There are still pockets of positive community left, but these are quickly becoming extinct as decline of civility mounts and AssumeGoodFaith is is being increasingly ignored. Trolls have been granted adminship, giving them the authority to delete pages, protect pages, and block users. Some wikipedians have no way of counterbalancing the trolls who have power, as the RFA page is a haven for these cancers to wikipedia, and they make false claims against some applicants. The general population is afraid to go against those who make the accusations and results in the trolls controlling the RFA appointees. Sysops have started to abuse their powers, protecting pages they are involved with, editing protected pages after an edit war has started, and threatening others with their powers. I can only hope that sysops are not abusing their power of deletion, as I cannot inspect deleted pages. I think that Wikipedians need to stop standing in the shadows afraid to speak against these trolls, and fight for what they believe is right. Only after this happens, can wikipedia be truly restored to the peaceful environment it once was. This is an appeal to all those who are afraid of being labled as troublemakers, it is a call for threatened wikipedians to rise up and unite for the future of Wikipedia to ensure that our voice will be heard. We have strength in numbers that the trolls do not. Don't let Wikipedia be ruined by a minority of powerful(by virtue of fear they instill) individuals! Green Mountain 14:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dear Green

Now that you have disturbed my peace, I must say I'd love to see a list of sysop trolls with evidence of their trolling activities. My own wxperience is, it seems, quite contrary to your own; I actually come here for the peace I experience as much as anything else. Bmills 14:28, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In my experience Wikipedia is as hostile an environment as ever. Calling someone a troll without giving any evidence to support your claim is an ad hominem, and not acceptable. Also inacceptable is calling someone a "cancer". Which admin do you believe to be a troll? Contrary to the way you portray it, non-admins are able to vote and voice their opinions on RfA (as you have done numerous times). Any case of admins abusing their powers should be documented on RfA, and if grave enough result in them being made non-admins.
"..., can wikipedia be truly restored to the peaceful environment it once was.".
I thought you have only been here for one month. Either you believe that the situation has degraded considerably in one month and you refer to one month ago as "once", or you are (as many suspect) alexandros/aplank and are lying to and deceiving wikipedia by claiming that you are not. --snoyes 14:42, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=2118984"