Dilvish 10 words (talk | contribs) |
Dilvish 10 words (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
Let's see what I wrote: |
Let's see what I wrote: |
||
'' |
:''"the article by now says: |
||
:: ''"many participants of the edition did not agree with the (later rejected) proposal to finance Wikipedia through advertising, and broke away to establish the Enciclopedia Libre fork."'' |
:: ''"many participants of the edition did not agree with the (later rejected) proposal to finance Wikipedia through advertising, and broke away to establish the Enciclopedia Libre fork."'' |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
and |
and |
||
'' |
:''"the article Spanish Wikipedia (just that about this talk page deals) says "In February 2002, many participants of the edition did not agree with the (later rejected) proposal to finance Wikipedia through advertising, and broke away to establish the Enciclopedia Libre fork. " So it says nothing about the other reasons that the own Enciclopedia Libre claims and that I quoted. I'm am not a member of the Enciclopedia Libre and no more of the Spanish Wikipedia, and I'm not the author of any of the links I apported. So, it's not my POV" |
||
'' |
'' |
||
So the reasons of the split are incomplete, and lack those relevant to the criticism (repeated bad behaviour of the administrators) which is also showed by the complain number 30. '''Hence there is a clear WP:COI'''. Maybe even vandalism (for the deleton of content)?. |
So the reasons of the split are incomplete, and lack those relevant to the criticism (repeated bad behaviour of the administrators) which is also showed by the complain number 30. '''Hence there is a clear WP:COI'''. Maybe even vandalism (for the deleton of content)?. |
Revision as of 15:01, 11 July 2007
Wikipedia Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Is Spanish wikipedia written in Mexican spanish or Spain style Spanish~??
- Mexican Spanish is only one variety of the Latin American Spanishes, and standard written Spanish prose doesn't seem to be particularly different in the Hispanophone world. Nevertheless, the question is interesting, information from the corresponding Spanish article:
Los artículos se nombran según el uso más común del español y, en su redacción, se tratan de evitar localismos para que cualquier hispanohablante pueda entenderlos sin dificultad.
(I don't know Spanish perfectly, but an estimated rough translation would be:)
The articles are named according to the usage most common in Spanish, and in editing, it's attempted to avoid "localisms" so that each Spanish speaker may understand them without difficulty.
As a digression, the Portuguese Wikipedia appears to follow local standards indiscriminately and varyingly depending on who happened to wrote the section:
Portuguese articles can contain small variations of writing, as European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese have minor variations in vocabulary and usage. Articles can contain written characteristics of one or the other variant depending on who wrote the article.
惑乱 分からん 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me they do it the same way that the English Wikipedia is done. Eran of Arcadia 16:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutral?
Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
A few excerpts that explain why the tag was put in place:
Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia
An article, whose name is the Dictators of Wikipedia, is too biased to be considered a serios reference. It's not fair to state that people are "not happy" if you don't include the reasons why the Spanish Wikipedia has adopted some policies which are more strict than other languages. Also, is there a published statistical study of how many people have left the Spanish wiki because of this? I'm sorry to tell you that the number of articles does not necessarily reflect the level of satisfaction with the Wikipedia (unless, as I said before, a study is made and published by a reputable source). Just my two cents. --Forgotten736 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is more neutral now. The "best" attempts for criticism on es.wp are things such Dictadores de Wikipedia... Neutrality of an article is it not the same that neutrality of their source, moreover, that link is clairly marked as an oppositor site. Bye. Lin linao 14:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- How can it be neutral if it has been written not only by wikipedians of the Spanish Wikipedia, but also by Administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia. What kind of NPOV is this?. It's biased. This should be as in WP:BLP using WP:VER, not autobiography.--62.57.161.72 12:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected
Article has been semi-protected for two days due to Colbert-related vandalism. P.S. Jimbo was right, we do watch Colbert.--Jersey Devil 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Criticism section by Antur lacks logic
The criticism section by Antur is incoherent. What is the logic of saying that Spanish wikipedia bans bots for the creation of stubs when 40% of the articles are stubs? It seems that the policy has failed to achieve the aimed quality. Yet, having 40% of stub index is presented in this article as a success.--tequendamia 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is not incoherent, it is just incomplete. It fails to mention that in spite of the informal policy against the massive creation of stubs, many users are creating semi-automatically thousands of stubs of cities and towns via template substitution. ---- Fernando Estel · (Talk: here- commons- es) 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that O.K.or it's WP:COI?
Maybe I should not complain, as the deleted section contained some kind of personal attacks against me (although not important of course), and as (I stated it in the deleted section) I had serious problems with a few administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia (not with all of them), but I would like to know if what is happening with this article is correct.
The thing I am surprised by is that two wikipedians that are administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia (Ecemaml in the main page, Alhen in the talk) erase data of the article on the article on the Spanish Wikipedia. This seems to me a clear Conflict of interest (WP:COI). Of course they can say what they thing about tha article, but to delete any thing thay dislike will make this article a auto-biography.
Assuming good faith I suppose that Alhen didn't read the whole section as he is wrong when he justifies the deletion "This section doesn't have anything to do with the article."([1]. Let's see what I wrote:
- "the article by now says:
- "many participants of the edition did not agree with the (later rejected) proposal to finance Wikipedia through advertising, and broke away to establish the Enciclopedia Libre fork."
- So it puts forward an ancient non vigent reason and keep silence on the vigent ones:
- ""The principal motive for the project's separation lies in our rejection of censorship, of an editorial line, and of including advertising. Critical voices were censored and the opinions of editors with administrative power continually used personal wording."
- The link on the complain number 30 is just more documentation (really massive), more references on this facts. And there is much more, but these links are proper, well documentated and so is on the article. These data do concern to the content of the article. I've contributed valid references to further edition of the article showing the shortcomings of the current version. "
(the translation is from the article [Enciclopedia Libre]) (complain number 30 is a complain against an Administrator of the Spanish Wikipedia alledging more than a hundred (ca. 150) diffs as proof: [2].
and
- "the article Spanish Wikipedia (just that about this talk page deals) says "In February 2002, many participants of the edition did not agree with the (later rejected) proposal to finance Wikipedia through advertising, and broke away to establish the Enciclopedia Libre fork. " So it says nothing about the other reasons that the own Enciclopedia Libre claims and that I quoted. I'm am not a member of the Enciclopedia Libre and no more of the Spanish Wikipedia, and I'm not the author of any of the links I apported. So, it's not my POV"
So the reasons of the split are incomplete, and lack those relevant to the criticism (repeated bad behaviour of the administrators) which is also showed by the complain number 30. Hence there is a clear WP:COI. Maybe even vandalism (for the deleton of content)?.
By the way, I feel that some wordings are suspicious, such as: "As all Wikipedias, the Spanish Wikipedia has been the object of criticism by users and bloggers" As all Wikipedias? References please!!!, or it's a way to minimize the sense of the paragraph?.
Maybe some administrator of the English Wikipedia could give his opinion?
Best regards. --Dilvish 10 words 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)