Talk:Reference.com

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Reference.com as a Reference for Wikipedia

Reference.com is a Wikipedia Mirror and search engine. Per WP:SOURCES it would not meet the requirements of being a reliable source for the core content policy of Verifiability. Jeepday (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps reference.com should not disambig to here, since reference.com seems to use wikipedia source? ++Lar 21:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Independent variables on plants

what do they mean or whats your opinion about it

question

how can referance.com be a competitor of wiki, if wiki supplies some of it's search results?--Manwithbrisk 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is free and open; by definition it cannot compete with anything. Fishal 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Free and open websites can still compete, e.g. number of users. 71.246.235.133 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is no sense whatsoever in a free and open website to attempt to compete. Commercial websites would want to be competitive, because they are interested in making a profit, which relates directly to the amount of views and visitors they have, as well as people who pay this website, if it is a website which charges for membership/access. Wikipedia is non-profit, and it is therefore not in any way affected by the number of visitors it has. In theory Wikipedia would not benefit any more if it had a billion visitors than if it had a hundred. The only reason, then, that Wikipedia would try to compete with other websites, commercial or non-commercial, would be for sheer vanity purposes, and the last time I checked Wikipedia's long term goals do not include becoming the most famous or the most popular website on the internet. Calgary (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In theory Wikipedia would not benefit any more if it had a billion visitors than if it had a hundred." That's ridiculous. More visitors means more editors, more content, and more donations to Wikimedia. 68.46.139.114 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reference/external

I found Reference.com used as a reference/external link on the article "Bernie LaBarge" History and on review found that the the article was a Wikipedia mirror http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Bernie_LaBarge. a check at finds that there are over two hundred thousand mentions of Reference.com on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Reference.com&fulltext=Search. the use I found was not in keeping with WP:EL. How many more inappropriate usages are there? Who is posting this? is it spam? Jeepday (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in to this a little more, the place where "Reference.com" is used in my example above was part of a series of edits to the same article by a user, it was not intential spam. Second my search above was flawed I should have searched for "Reference.com" in quotes, which comes up with around 3,000 many of which are to baseball-Reference.com which appears to be a separate entity from Reference.com Jeepday (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

It's notable. Take off the "General notability" disclaimer. Not only does pretty much everyone use the site, but Google links to it at the top of search results pages, and as an Ask.com aquisition, people are interested. Like me. I just wikipedia'd this page to see when Ask bought them. Thanks for the info! --AlanH (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yop... very notable and reliable... the best site there is.. :]

And English is a profoundly crafted language... it is also beautiful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.161.79 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is Reference.com?

The article states that Reference.com is an encyclopedia, dictionary, and thesaurus. It seems to me that the site is more of a search engine for definitions, encyclopedia articles, etc., since it uses exclusively external content as far as I know. Can someone change the wording to reflect this, if this is in fact true? Thanks. 138.16.32.85 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

InterActiveCorp logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]