m Reverted edits by Nicebyu7 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot III |
How do I edit? |
||
Line 256: | Line 256: | ||
<!-- End request --> |
<!-- End request --> |
||
[[User:NYC Editorial|NYC Editorial]] ([[User talk:NYC Editorial|talk]]) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
[[User:NYC Editorial|NYC Editorial]] ([[User talk:NYC Editorial|talk]]) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
How do I edit the article part? There is no edit tab over there, only here on the talk pages. |
Revision as of 17:46, 4 July 2014
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Wikipedia talk notice
Interesting edit to the lede
There is a link to an admin's user page. The change did not summary the body. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This seems to be due to this edit by User:Bigbaby23. It's a strange edit, to say the least. I've rolled it back, and left a note on their talk page. -- Impsswoon (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is a still a whole paragraph that was replaced in the lede with this diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
= Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014 =
Wikipedia is the best website ever !
GenuineManiac (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate the sentiment, but we can't put it in. Calidum Talk To Me 23:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 23:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Way too long
I think the article is way too long. If there is no disagreement, in a next few days, I'm going to move some materials to subarticles. -- Taku (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree it's fairly long. There seems to be a lot of charts and graphs that don't really add much to the article and clutter the page up. Calidum Talk To Me 03:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting observation. It seems that much of the article looks at Wikipedia in the first ten years rather than the second ten years of Wikipedia. It would be nice if the up to date material could be retained, and maybe the older material moved to the history of Wikipedia page. Same for charts and graphs, keep the new ones and possibly move the older ones to the History page. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Spelling mistake of methodology as "methology"
I don't have permission to edit this since it is semi-protected so could somebody else do so please? It is in the fourth paragraph: "Britannica replied that the study's methology and conclusions were flawed."
Finnhambly (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Misleading phrasing
Under Analysis of content: Accuracy of content there is a statement that, looking at the sources, seems to be very misleading regarding the factuality of the what is being said. The sentence is structured in such a fashion that it implies fact, not opinion. However, if one looks at both of the sources for this, the first is an article written in a magazine publication, and is meant to explain what wikipedia is, not provide a reliable analysis of the issues it contains. It is far from a factual source, containing no references or research, leading me to believe that it is written based on the authors current perceptions of Wikipedia. The second source is a little better, but still only written using the authors current opinions and ideas, being supported by facts from his head (mostly reliable given who he is, but still based only on his view, not research or academic work). ″Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, and those with an agenda to push" should be reworded to something along the lines of: Critics of Wikipedia have stated that it's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, and those with an agenda to push. The former implies that there is reliable (and since it is on a Wikipedia page, hopefully cited) data to support the statement, while the latter implies merely an opinion, currently lacking any cited data to support the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.170.168 (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014
I'd like to submit a wholesale copyedit of the fourth paragraph of the article "Wikipedia," reproduced here:
The open nature of Wikipedia has led to various concerns, such as the quality of writing,[18] vandalism[19][20] and the accuracy of information. Some articles contain unverified or inconsistent information,[21] though a 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the 42 science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[22] Britannica replied that the study's methodology and conclusions were flawed.[23] With Wikipedia approaching five million edited articles in 2014, the last edition of Britannica contained approximately forty thousand articles by comparison, which is over one hundred times smaller than the current number of articles edited on Wikipedia.[24] The policies of Wikipedia combine verifiability and a neutral point of view.
Suggested copyedit:
Wikipedia's open nature has led to various concerns, such as the quality of its writing,[18] the accuracy of its information, and vandalism.[19][20] However, while some articles contain unverified or inconsistent information,[21] a 2005 investigation in Nature found that 42 Wikipedia science articles approached the Encyclopædia Britannica's level of accuracy and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[22] (The Britannica replied that the study's methodology and conclusions were flawed.[23]) As of 2014, Wikipedia contains nearly five million edited articles, more than 100 times the Britannica's article count of 40,000.[24] Wikipedia's policies champion verifiability and a neutral point of view.
NYC Editorial (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014
I'd like to submit a copyedit of the first paragraph of the article "Wikipedia," reproduced here:
Wikipedia (Listeni/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or Listeni/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə) is a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia that is supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Volunteers worldwide collaboratively write Wikipedia's 30 million articles in 287 languages, including over 4.5 million in the English Wikipedia. Anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles, which on the Internet comprise[4] the largest and most popular general reference work.[5][6][7][8][9] In February 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites stating, "With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month..., Wikipedia trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors."
Suggested copyedit:
Wikipedia (Listeni/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or Listeni/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə) is a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia that is supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Volunteers worldwide collaboratively write Wikipedia's 30 million articles in 287 languages, including more than 4.5 million articles in the English Wikipedia. Anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles, which collectively make up[4] the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.[5][6][7][8][9] In February 2014, the New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites, declaring: "With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month..., Wikipedia trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors."
NOTE: The most important edit is "make up" for the improper "comprise" (since the whole comprises the parts, not the other way around). I ignored other possible minor errors and inconsistencies (such as the hyphenated "non-profit" and "over 4.5 million" rather than Merriam-Webster's "nonprofit" and "more than 4.5 million," since these may be style issues that have already been addressed by British and/or American editors.
NYC Editorial (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014
I'd like to submit a copyedit of the third paragraph of the article "Wikipedia," reproduced here:
Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of encyclopedia-building and the presence of much unacademic content have received extensive attention in print media. In 2006, Time magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation in the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by millions of people around the world, in addition to YouTube, reddit, MySpace, and Facebook.[14] Wikipedia has also become known as a news source because of the rapid update of articles related to breaking news.[15][16][17]
Suggested copyedit:
Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven approach to encyclopedia-building and the presence of much unacademic content have received extensive media attention. In 2006, Time magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation (along with YouTube, reddit, MySpace, and Facebook[14]) in the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by millions of people worldwide. Wikipedia has also earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news.[15][16][17]
NYC Editorial (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
How do I edit the article part? There is no edit tab over there, only here on the talk pages.