Jump to content

Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Wikipedia's Favicon just changed!

Noticed the round corners? --Iketsi (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia staff size?

Andre Lih's book, "The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia" from 2009 said Wikipedia had 10 employees. However, a recent plea at the top of the wikipedia pages says there are 150 employees now (in 2012). So, was Lih wrong, or did the company increase in size by 1500% in three years? Or have I misunderstood something? Thanks for any insight. 160.111.254.15 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely possible it's grown by that much. Fledgling businesses do grow massively in their first few years of successful operation, and this is especially true of internet-based organisations that require a massive server infrastructure. drewmunn talk 17:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Italic title

Let me begin by saying that I know it was wrong of me to edit war about this subject a few weeks ago. My multiple reverts, which by the way were nowhere in tune with wp:BOLD nor wp:BRD nor especially with wp:STATUSQUO, could have and should have been handled very differently on my part. As essentially a wp:gnome who has italicized the titles of countless other articles with no ill effects, I was caught by surprise that there was so much opposition to the italicization of this article's title. That's no excuse for my behavior for there is no excuse for that. And that also includes some of the things I said in the ensuing discussion. I know those words can't be taken back, yet I hope that any and all contributors who were in any way offended by my words will forgive me, for you have my deepest apology.

The thing that got to me the most was how strenuous were the arguments for what most editors seemed to consider a trivial issue. I have since learned that I was wrong about that. While this issue is certainly not among the most important issues that face Wikipedia, past discussions have shown me that it is not exactly found among the trivial issues either. Both support and opposition to italics in article titles has been strong and sometimes quite emphatic. These include and are not limited to discussions already noted in the previous relevant section on this talk page, the earliest "what to dos" on the talk page of the {{italic title}} template that go back 4 to 5 years, a long discussion here that led to the first Rfc on this MoS talk page that further led to a policy Rfc on this page. The policy Rfc resulted in this blurb on the policy page:

Use italics when italics would be used in running text; for example, taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles.[6] wp:ITALICTITLE

The use of bold in the above is not my emphasis, but that of the policy writers. As you may know, in 2011 a consensus was reached that resulted in the following MoS/Text formatting paragraph (part of that bold link in the policy blurb above):

Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

So while I still disagree with those contributors who oppose the italicization of this article's title, I do understand better why their opposition is strenuous. In a few days I plan to ask over some uninvolved editors to get their takes on this title-format disagreement. Since the above discussions have led to the books', films', albums', etc. italic titles, then apparently the only thing that will (or won't) get this article's title italicized is a consensus on this talk page. That is what I hope to achieve one way or the other. If this article, Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia), is finally italicized, that would be great. If non-italics of this article is allowed to continue, then it is what it is. Thank you very much for your kind attention! Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 12:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As an editor who revered the changes repeatedly, I just want to say that I have absolutely no bad feeling about the incident (the war is such a strong word.) I know you acted in a good faith, presumably unaware of the local situation, and I see no fault in terms of behaviors. Wikipedia cannot function without gnomes, so keep up the good work.
Having said this, I still maintain my position. Maybe the "inertial" is the best argument, but, as I see it, there is no good arguments for the "italic title" for Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but it's rather a special kind. It's more like a website for instance to the general public. Wikipedia is an exceptional case and an exception is ok. The common name policy says that we use the common spelling. A quick Googling shows the vast majority of reliable sources e.g., newspapers use the non-italic title for Wikipedia. Should I keep continuing? -- Taku (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Taku, I am happy to put the previous conversation behind us completely, as I see you seem to be also. And thank you for your kindnesses both in that you "see no fault" and in your encouragement to "keep up the good work".
There really is no fault in two people who disagree. By the "inertial argument", I assume you mean to maintain the status quo and keep things the way they are. That was indeed one of the difficult disagreements about this issue of italic article titles from the beginning. 4 or 5 years ago on the talk page of the {{Italic title}} template editors wanted to maintain the status quo and not italicize anything. Then italics for biology articles with Latin titles, specially species, were "grudgingly" allowed. Things died down as they tend to do here on Wikipedia, and then those sneaky (humorously meant) comics lovers on the comic book project began putting their titles in italics. Discussions restarted, and all the way up until the end of the policy Rfc I mentioned above, your argument, the one for maintaining the status quo and not putting any titles in italics was perhaps the most difficult to overcome. And yet, as you see above, it was overcome, and the contributor who closed that Rfc, a self-proclaimed advocate of "inertia", could no longer argue with both the numbers (!votes) and the sound arguments made for breaking with the status quo.
Wikipedia is indeed an exception to the rules – to all rules, really. Italics are mainly for identification purposes. The title of a book is rarely if ever italicized on the book's cover, but then the book itself is easily seen as a book. In running text, when the book is mentioned or cited, its title is italicized so readers can easily see that it is a creative work, in this case a book, that is being mentioned. The same goes for the titles of albums, films and other creative works. And what is more of a creative work than our encyclopedia? Is Wikipedia not the most creative work to ever grace this world? Not only should we make it different (with italics) so readers can easily discern Wikipedia the encyclopedia as a creative reference work, but also for readers to see Wikipedia the encyclopedia as different from Wikipedia the project, Wikipedia the community, and Wikipedia everything else.
These are only opinions from someone who is very biased in favor of Wikipedia, so much of their validity may indeed be subject to scrutiny. To answer your question, "yes, by all means do continue" if you are so inclined, Taku. You have the right to voice your opinions as they apply to all things that interest you about this issue. If you meant your question rhetorically, then I once again ask your forgiveness for any misunderstanding. Thank you again for your kind words! Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Like TakuyaMurata, I harbor no ill feelings. And I sincerely appreciate the above message.
I'll note that it was your approach to discussing the matter, not your edit-warring, that I found most troubling.
Throughout the previous discussion, you continually stated that this article is about Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. As others have noted, it's about Wikipedia in its entirety, which also is widely regarded as an open collaboration that helped to popularize the wiki model (i.e. another type of website). This probably is why reliable sources rarely italicize its name. (Nonetheless, you deemed its italicization a "global convention". And when I asked you to cite evidence of this, you quoted me out of context — omitting the nature of the evidence requested — and claimed that you'd already provided it.)
You appeared to argue that the article's hatnote (in which Wikipedia is described as an "Internet encyclopedia") rendered the subject's other elements irrelevant, and you even advocated that documentation thereof be removed from the article (because it's "about the Internet encyclopedia").
You repeatedly cited a WP:ITALICS discussion, ignoring the fact that it concluded with the realization that Wikipedia wasn't a valid example of the advice's application, which prompted its removal.
You've again cited that discussion (with no acknowledgement of its last message) and stated that the article is about "Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia)". So while I'm relieved that you regret the earlier exchange and now seek a more collegial one, I remain concerned that you intend to approach it in this manner. —David Levy 16:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, David, for not feeling ill will. Such does nobody any good in the end, and I am greatly distressed if I was the author of any ill will in the past in anyone who watches this talk page.
Yes, I am first to agree that my approach to the previous discussion lacked objectivity and, well, knowledge about the subject. Those will hopefully continue to improve.
We will continue to disagree about what this article is about. Yes, there are sections devoted to  Main article: Community of Wikipedia, to  Main article: Wikimedia Foundation and other aspects that are not, strictly speaking, component parts of Wikipedia the encyclopedia. In my humble opinion these should be reduced (not removed) to brief summaries since the information can be had in detail with a "click" on a blue link if the reader so desires. This by no means reflects upon their overall relevancy; I merely mean that this article proclaims itself to be about the encyclopedia and could be better-focused upon that subject.
Yes, I could very well have been overstating the matter when I used the term "global convention". I didn't read those exact words when I studied the many talk page discussions about italicized article titles; however, I did get the distinct impression from the researchers that "outside" conventions do exist that support the argument for italics-titled online encyclopedias. Wouldn't it have been even more difficult for them to come to consensus in both the guideline and policy Rfc's without such conventions?
You repeatedly cited a WP:ITALICS discussion, ignoring the fact that it concluded with the realization that Wikipedia wasn't a valid example of the advice's application, which prompted its removal.
Let me not ignore it this time, David. What makes you feel that Wikipedia, as an example of an online encyclopedia, was replaced because it was considered an invalid example? Edit summary: (change to examples to citable sources - see talk) and from the talk page:
Tangentially related, I found it annoying that we gave two uncitable sources as examples. Yes, I know we can talk about Urban Dictionary without citing it, but I think it sets a good example to use sources that are citable within Wikipedia's guidelines. So I've changed "(like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary)" to "(like Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online)". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, after all, an online encyclopedia, so what about Wikipedia makes it an invalid example? In my opinion, the underlying truth may be that Wikipedia may have been replaced to comply with wp:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. Or maybe it was a case of an editor who feels much like you and Taku that Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, should be an exception to the rule? In any case, there is no reason to believe that the replacement was due to Wikipedia as an invalid example of an online encyclopedia. While Wikipedia encompasses several distinct items, it is nonetheless an online encyclopedia among other things, is it not?
Thank you again for your sentiments and for your concern. I hope that in the future I will learn to express myself in an improved way. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I merely mean that this article proclaims itself to be about the encyclopedia and could be better-focused upon that subject.
As I explained in the previous discussion, the hatnote's purpose is to identify the subject and distinguish it from others. It would be counterproductive to state that "this article is about the wiki", as people commonly are unfamiliar with wikis or misinterpret "Wikipedia" as a reference to other wikis or wikis in general. So we state that it's "about the Internet encyclopedia", thereby focusing on a distinction that readers are likely to understand upfront.
The intent is not to deem Wikipedia's other characteristics off-topic. Mentioning them in that context simply wouldn't be helpful.
The Robert Downey, Jr. article is about a person by that name. Its hatnote conveys that "this article is about the actor", but that doesn't mean that information about other elements of the subject (such as his music career and personal life) belong in separate articles. We're merely referring to the characteristic that best assists readers in recognizing the article's subject and distinguishing it from other persons with similar names.
Yes, I could very well have been overstating the matter when I used the term "global convention". I didn't read those exact words when I studied the many talk page discussions about italicized article titles; however, I did get the distinct impression from the researchers that "outside" conventions do exist that support the argument for italics-titled online encyclopedias.
I explicitly referred to Wikipedia in particular. Reliable sources might commonly italicize the names of online reference works in general, but do they do so with with Wikipedia's name?
No, they usually don't. Why don't they? Perhaps because Wikipedia isn't categorized as an encyclopedia above all else. "Wiki" is a similarly essential and noteworthy element, and the names of wikis generally aren't italicized.
So either style would reflect one of the subject's key elements, and you advocate that we deviate from that used by most reliable sources and by us. Why? As far as I can tell, it's because the hatnote states that "this article is about the Internet encyclopedia."
What makes you feel that Wikipedia, as an example of an online encyclopedia, was replaced because it was considered an invalid example?
Upon review, I must apologize for apparently misunderstanding Adrian J. Hunter's rationale, which I thought referred to the fact that neither example article actually contains such italic styling. I now realize that this probably isn't what he meant.
But it is true. Again, our guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Before, during and after the discussion, this article presented the name "Wikipedia" in a non-italic style, so it wasn't a valid example (and hasn't been cited as one since then).
Wikipedia is, after all, an online encyclopedia, so what about Wikipedia makes it an invalid example?
The fact that we don't apply the relevant convention to its article. How can something that isn't true be a valid example?
In my opinion, the underlying truth may be that Wikipedia may have been replaced to comply with wp:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid.
That guideline doesn't even bar mentions of Wikipedia in articles, let alone in our own guidelines. (How would that work?) It's about not writing articles in a manner reliant upon the assumption they're being read at Wikipedia (e.g. by referring to "this website" or "this Wikipedia article", or by asking readers to "click" for further information).
Or maybe it was a case of an editor who feels much like you and Taku that Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, should be an exception to the rule?
It isn't just Wikipedia. The names of wikis in general, including those that also are reference works (such as Wiktionary), usually aren't italicized (by reliable sources or by us).
Rivertorch mentioned the possibility of making a special exception for Wikipedia (as part of a "house style that treats self-references differently than references to other publications"), and I explicitly opposed that idea (citing its incompatibility with the aforementioned WP:SELFREF).
In any case, there is no reason to believe that the replacement was due to Wikipedia as an invalid example of an online encyclopedia.
That isn't what I meant. I mean that it's an invalid example of an article in which we italicize the subject's name.
While Wikipedia encompasses several distinct items, it is nonetheless an online encyclopedia among other things, is it not?
Yes, among other things. —David Levy 22:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure your Downey Jr. example applies here. And I think I see the problem. Wikipedia, in your eyes, is one single notable entity similar to a human body (in this case Robert Downey Jr.), which of course is true. And this article is about the "body", not just the liver or the spleen. You may very well be right, and perhaps only an Rfc can sort it out.
The fact that we don't apply the relevant convention to its article. How can something that isn't true be a valid example?
I'm not sure I understand the question. We seem to be debating on two badly focused fronts:
  1. Should this article about Wikipedia be considered as "about the encyclopedia"? and
  2. If this article were about just the encyclopedia, should its title be italicized as it should be in running text? and perhaps a third?...
  3. Should "Wikipedia the encyclopedia" be italicized in running text, as well?
The obvious answer to #3 for me is that when "Wikipedia the encyclopedia" is the subject, then "Wikipedia" should be italicized in running text. This is merely to identify the encyclopedia for our readers. It would set italicized Wikipedia apart as a creative work and would set the encyclopedia apart from the other aspects of non-italicized Wikipedia.
As for #1, my feeling on the matter is that there is no harm to have an article that is just about Wikipedia the encyclopedia and, for the most part, this article's content pretty much fills the bill. My answer to #2 follows from that as "Yes".
That isn't what I meant. I mean that it's an invalid example of an article in which we italicize the subject's name.
Okay, sorry if I misunderstood you. At this point that is correct about this article. It is indeed an invalid example of an article in which we italicize the subject's title. Hopefully, that will not be the case, soon. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure your Downey Jr. example applies here.
My point is that the hatnote's purpose is to distinguish the subject from others with which it might be confused. If such subjects didn't exist, neither would the hatnote.
Just as the Robert Downey, Jr. article's hatnote doesn't restrict the article's scope to Downey's acting career, the hatnote in question doesn't limit this article's scope to "Internet encyclopedia". Again, that's simply a practical means of identifying the subject, and "wiki" isn't (because people commonly believe that "Wikipedia" refers to other wikis or is synonymous with "wiki").
And I think I see the problem. Wikipedia, in your eyes, is one single notable entity similar to a human body (in this case Robert Downey Jr.), which of course is true.
Then why, in your view, is it logical — from an organizational standpoint — to divide the article in the manner that you've described? To me, it makes about as much sense as splitting Franklin half dollar into Franklin half dollar (obverse) and Franklin half dollar (reverse). Wikipedia is both a wiki and an encyclopedia, but it isn't those two things separately.
And this article is about the "body", not just the liver or the spleen. You may very well be right, and perhaps only an Rfc can sort it out.
We need an RfC to determine whether the article actually is about the subject that it's covered since it was written in 2001? Has anyone other than you even questioned this?
The obvious answer to #3 for me is that when "Wikipedia the encyclopedia" is the subject, then "Wikipedia" should be italicized in running text.
Because the two elements are inextricably bound, it's rare for "Wikipedia the encyclopedia" to be the subject when "Wikipedia the wiki" isn't too. There are contexts in which Wikipedia is covered more as an encyclopedia (an obvious example being the Encyclopedia article), so perhaps it would make sense to italicize the name in such a circumstance. But do reliable sources even do that? (I asked this in the previous discussion and didn't receive a relevant response.) They certainly don't switch back and forth within a single article.
This is merely to identify the encyclopedia for our readers. It would set italicized Wikipedia apart as a creative work and would set the encyclopedia apart from the other aspects of non-italicized Wikipedia.
If we're explicitly referring to a particular element of Wikipedia, this should readily apparent from the prose. (If not, it needs to be rewritten.) If we're referring to Wikipedia as a whole, the distinction between "encyclopedia" and "wiki" is irrelevant in that context. (And which format would we use then?)
As for #1, my feeling on the matter is that there is no harm to have an article that is just about Wikipedia the encyclopedia
The harm is that we'd be dividing our coverage of a single subject in an awkward, artificial manner that serves no apparent purpose other than compliance with your misinterpretation of a hatnote. —David Levy 02:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
edit line
My point is that the hatnote's purpose is to distinguish the subject from others with which it might be confused. If such subjects didn't exist, neither would the hatnote.
Agreed.
Then why, in your view, is it logical — from an organizational standpoint — to divide the article in the manner that you've described?
It is the same logic used when an article about the liver or the spleen exists to show a component of the human body. Why would you oppose segregating (as this article tends to do) the creative work that is Wikipedia the encyclopedia from the concept of Wikipedia in its entirety?
Wikipedia is both a wiki and an encyclopedia, but it isn't those two things separately.
We are not trying to separate the "wiki" from the "encyclopedia". We are no more trying to "separate" anything than we would be if we wrote an article on Putney Swope, a Robert Downey, Sr. film.
We need an RfC to determine whether the article actually is about the subject that it's covered since it was written in 2001?
The Rfc is needed to determine the basic answer to the basic question, "Should this article's title be italicized?"
Has anyone other than you even questioned this?
I don't know if anyone has asked the question you asked. According to Taku, the question regarding whether or not to italicize this article's title has been asked before. I'm sure the question you asked will come up at an Rfc, that is, "Is this article about Wikipedia or is it about Wikipedia?" That is a side-issue that must be addressed. Your evident status-quo since "2001" is understood. I have made significant edits to older articles, and I would assume you have to. In my gnoming, if I come across a film article that is as old as this article and the title is not italicized, wouldn't both of us advocate slapping the {{italic title}} template on it?
Because the two elements are inextricably bound,...
Existence of an article about the heart does not seem in any way to invalidate that the heart is inextricably bound to the body, does it? I do understand your concern, though. Just this morning I went over to Wikiquote to find a good one for my user page and decided to open my user and talk pages there (been meaning to do this for a long time). As I do most of my editing on Wikipedia, I made links to my local user and talk pages. The issue arose: should I italicize "Wikipedia"? After a bit of thought, I decided not to italicize it because the links to my user pages were part of the Wikipedia "community" and not actually part of the encyclopedia.
But do reliable sources even do that? (I asked this in the previous discussion and didn't receive a relevant response.)
From my research into the past discussions, the answer seems to be that some do and some don't, and the ones that do italicize Wikipedia and other creative works aren't always consistent. The changes made to our policy and guideline appear to reflect our own consistent drive for consistency, among other things.
If we're explicitly referring to a particular element of Wikipedia, this should readily apparent from the prose. (If not, it needs to be rewritten.) If we're referring to Wikipedia as a whole, the distinction between "encyclopedia" and "wiki" is irrelevant in that context. (And which format would we use then?)
Sometimes it's not so apparent, which is one reason we italicize book and film articles, so that readers don't have to "guess" that a book or film is referenced. Obviously, when we refer to "Wikipedia as a whole", then the word "Wikipedia" would not be italicized.
The harm is that we'd be dividing our coverage of a single subject in an awkward, artificial manner that serves no apparent purpose...
To dispel that harm, then, we must see to it that the "dividing" is not any more awkwardly and artificially done than the way liver, spleen and heart are "divided" from the body. Thank you again for trying to understand my purpose, which is not based primarily upon a hatnote, but upon our applicable policy and guideline, as usual. I sincerely hope this was not TL;DR – apologies if so. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed.
Then I'm confused as to why you've repeatedly cited the hatnote as evidence that the article's scope is limited to "Internet encyclopedia".
It is the same logic used when an article about the liver or the spleen exists to show a component of the human body.
The liver and spleen are separate organs. While parts of a larger whole, they function separately and serve separate roles.
Analogously, we maintain a separate Wikipedia article instead of merging it into Wikimedia Foundation.
Why would you oppose segregating (as this article tends to do) the creative work that is Wikipedia the encyclopedia from the concept of Wikipedia in its entirety?
The encyclopedia isn't a standalone entity that can be described in a context independent from Wikipedia's underlying infrastructure.
Encyclopædia Britannica is a traditional encyclopedia, irrespective of whether it's printed on paper, distributed on discs or published online. Conversely, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia that happens to exist in the form of a wiki. "Wiki" is an intrinsic element. It's how Wikipedia exists. It's directly relevant to the encyclopedia's content and the world's (including reliable sources') perception thereof.
We are not trying to separate the "wiki" from the "encyclopedia". We are no more trying to "separate" anything than we would be if we wrote an article on Putney Swope, a Robert Downey, Sr. film.
Robert Downey, Sr. and Putney Swope are separate subjects. One is a person and one is a film.
The Rfc is needed to determine the basic answer to the basic question, "Should this article's title be italicized?"
That isn't the context in which you mentioned the RfC. You wrote that I "may very well be right [that the article is about Wikipedia in its entirety], and perhaps only an Rfc can sort it out."
I'm sure the question you asked will come up at an Rfc, that is, "Is this article about Wikipedia [italicized] or is it about Wikipedia [non-italicized]?" That is a side-issue that must be addressed.
The article has been about Wikipedia as a whole since its inception. Again, has anyone other than you questioned this?
Your evident status-quo since "2001" is understood. I have made significant edits to older articles, and I would assume you have to.
I was addressing the article's current scope. In its twelve years of existence, it always has covered Wikipedia as a whole, so it seems rather odd that you'd question whether that's what it's about.
Certainly, we could decide to change the article's scope. I've explained why I oppose that idea.
In my gnoming, if I come across a film article that is as old as this article and the title is not italicized, wouldn't both of us advocate slapping the {{italic title}} template on it?
In that context, the article's age is immaterial. Yes, I would italicize the title, barring some reason not to.
Existence of an article about the heart does not seem in any way to invalidate that the heart is inextricably bound to the body, does it?
The heart isn't inextricably bound to the body. It can be removed and transplanted. It's a distinct entity.
From my research into the past discussions, the answer seems to be that some do and some don't, and the ones that do italicize Wikipedia and other creative works aren't always consistent.
Do any reliable sources deliberately italicize the word when referring to the encyclopedia and not when referring to Wikipedia's other elements (on either an intra-document or inter-document basis)?
Sometimes it's not so apparent,
Please cite instances in which our failure to draw such a distinction (by italicizing Wikipedia in reference to its "encyclopedia" element and not italicizing it otherwise) reduces the prose's clarity.
I sincerely hope this was not TL;DR – apologies if so.
For me to deem someone else's message "too long" would be astonishingly hypocritical.  :) —David Levy 05:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, David, for the discourse. Your remaining questions and particulars are valid and important, and I hope they're all sorted out in general discussion. I don't have all the answers; I wish I did, but I don't. If your points hold up under scrutiny of the community, then I shall be happy to concede that this article's title shouldn't be italicized. Otherwise, not. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 13:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Wikipedia in italics?

This RfC is closed – please do not modify it.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should this article's title and instances of its encyclopedic use in running text be in italics? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 09:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic use of italics

There has been discussion on this talk page in regard to the question whether or not to italicize "Wikipedia" in the title of this article and in the running text of this article. The most recent talks are:

For those contributors who would like to read an extensive history on the general topic of italics in article titles and running text, the following talk pages and their archives are available:

The Rfc on the policy talk page above has led to the following paragraph in the Article titles policy:

Use italics when italics would be used in running text; for example, taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles.[6] WP:ITALICTITLE

Discussions and consensus on the guideline talk pages have led to the following statement in the Manual of Style guideline:

Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized... MOS:ITALIC

An example of one possible result of this RfC can be found on the following page:

All editors, confirmed, non-confirmed and IP (non-registered), are invited to either support or oppose the title of this article in italics and all instances of "Wikipedia" (the online encyclopedia) in running text to also be italicized.

Following are two subsections, "Survey" and "Threaded discussion"; the "Survey" subsection is for your Support of italics or to Oppose italics, along with a brief rationale for your support or opposition, so please use the "Threaded discussion" subsection (not the "Survey" subsection) to discuss the issues in depth. Thank you in advance for your participation! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 09:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Support:

  • Support as nom. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia; however, this article is about the encyclopedia, so lengthy sections about the community, the foundation, etc., could be shortened and summarized. All instances of "Wikipedia" that refer to the online encyclopedia, both in running text and the title of the article, should be in italics per the policy and the guideline. Is there good reason to make an exception because this is about Wikipedia, the encyclopedia? I do not believe so. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 09:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (weak-medium). I'm not heavily invested in the outcome, but I do have some points.
  • "This article is about the Internet encyclopedia. For other uses, see Wikipedia (disambiguation)." This suggests that the article predominantly refers to the encyclopaedia, for what it's worth.
  • Italicising the title will help further distinguish the article itself from a "Wikipedia:" project page.
--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't even bothered to refute this argument, because I thought it was too silly, but the article clearly isn't only or even mostly about Wikipedia's main space that you read when you want to know something, it's about the whole project, of which only part is the bit you read.Teapeat (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles do that, they cover whole, relatively wide topics, rather than singling out any small part; this is not cyanide dripped in, it's the purpose of the article to cover everything.Teapeat (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
This article is, at present, in the neighborhood of 85% or more about the encyclopedia. The remaining small percentage is about either the Wikipedia community or the Wikipedia project. And thank you both – you, Topperfalkon, for your support, and you, Teapeat, for your participation and enthusiasm! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 20:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia is the name a major creative work. It is no mere website. A printout of Wikipedia would be called Wikipedia. Creative titles are best presented in italics. Wikipedia has a widespread failing in not doing this more generally. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Chicago (2010) and the APA (2012) have determined that the name of this publication is Wikipedia.
More generally, they agree that Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, Wikipedia, and other online reference works should be italicized.
From Chicago Manual of Style (2010):
Websites and web pages. General titles of websites … are normally set in roman. Some websites share the name of a printed counterpart, and others (such as Wikipedia) are analogous to one of the types of works [books and periodicals] discussed elsewhere; these titles should be styled accordingly:
IMDb; Encyclopaedia Britannica Online; Wikipedia
The APA Style Guide to Electronic References (2012) romanizes the names of websites: “Facebook”; “the APA Style website”. But it says that Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and Wikipedia are online reference works, not websites.
Books … and reference books. This category also includes … reference works that are available online.
Entry in Wikipedia. Psychology. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
Wikipedia is italicized because it is the name of a reference work.
Not that anyone should care, but I understand that the MLA and The Bluebook would also be much happier if we italicize... --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • Oppose. Given the recent discussions (linked above), your rationale (in which you again assert — without qualification — that "this article is about the encyclopedia") is thoroughly disheartening and borders on insulting. What's the point of requesting comment if you don't intend to even acknowledge others' views? —David Levy 11:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia; it's a wiki, a type of a website. The article title of the website is usually not italicized. Also, this article is more than about the encyclopedia; e.g., community, production processes, operations, etc. -- Taku (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Should this article be called Wikipedia (encyclopaedia), then I'd agree with your assertion. As it isn't, I don't. drewmunn talk 11:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I understand it, italicizing names is really done to make names easy to read. For example, if I talk about 2001, A Space Odyssey, it tends to blur together but referring to 2001, A Space Odyssey it stands out more easily. This improves things, particularly when the individual words that make up the title are normal English words. But Wikipedia is a coined word, and so it's obvious what it means in context, there's no danger of misreading it. Because hardly anyone italicises "Wikipedia" in text it seems to be pointless to try to start a trend. Indeed, if Wikipedia starts doing it, it can only cause pain for everyone, it seems to be too late to start now for Wikipedia. I'm certainly not opposed to doing this for other names if this is done reasonably consistently elsewhere, it just doesn't seem like something Wikipedia should impose. So I don't see that WP:MOS determines this, nor should some 'etiquette' book that somebody wrote. I know a pointless idea when I see one, and this seems to me to be pretty pointless.Teapeat (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Teapeat says. Whatever Wikipedia may be, it appears not to be the sort of thing that people normally italicize. It certainly differs in many significant respects from the "published works" that normally get italics (for example, it has never really been published, and its content changes every fraction of a second), so I don't find it inconsistent to italicize Britannica, say, but not Wikipedia. Victor Yus (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No. At least not earlier than MOS prescribed Microsoft Windows, which could have more sense than Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because Wikipedia is not a brand, but rather a proper noun. Only brands are italicised. --Preceding signed comment by Epicgenius (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    You are correct in that Wikipedia is a proper noun; however, the encyclopedia named Wikipedia is a product. It has been published, at least in part, in CD format for more than one reason. And that important creative work that is Wikipedia is an "online encyclopedia", a product of the Wikipedia project. This article is, for the most part, about the encyclopedia. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is not a brand" is completely wrong. Wikipedia is a brand. Wikipedia is a well recognised brand. You may not name any other thing as "Wikipedia". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nobody anywhere italicizes Wikipedia, and our MOS guidelines are miswritten if they endorse such a thing. —Gendralman (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    College papers can be cited that italicize our encyclopedia's name, for example this one, and there are other examples found in the past discussions/RfCs noted above. The MoS guideline that leads us to italicize online encyclopedias was arrived at as a result of two RfCs, one on the policy talk page. In other words, both the policy edit and the MoS edit were the result of community consensus. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not a standard practice to italicize names of websites. Hot Stop 01:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    That may be true; however, the community consensus reached in the policy and guideline RfCs result in the need for us to carefully weigh the merits of each website and to decide to put a website name in italics, or not to italicize the website, based upon the individual characteristics of the website. That really doesn't apply here, though, because this article is mostly about the online encyclopedia, and the policy and the MoS are clear. One should have a very good reason to ignore both policy and guideline, both of which apply to this article, imho. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    Considering how little traction your argument has gained (none, at this point) it might be time to drop this quixotic crusade of yours. Hot Stop 01:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    Is that what you do, Hot Stop? When you believe something is right and you face unthinkable odds, do you just give up? That's not what I do – not even for an instant. (BTW, check the way I coded your sig in this reply. It's another way to encode the font within the span tag.) – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    If a lot of people felt I was wrong about something, I would at least consider their points before explaining why only I could be correct. I wouldn't badger people either Hot Stop 14:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    I think I understand, Hot Stop. You feel that I have not considered your opposition rationale? You feel that I badger you? Well, I hope you won't badger me about all that. Your opposition rationale was It's not a standard practice to italicize names of websites. The question of this RfC is whether or not this article, which is mostly about Wikipedia the encyclopedia, should show both its title and all instances of the word "Wikipedia", when that word refers to the encyclopedia, in italics. This RfC is not about Wikipedia, the "website". This is only about Wikipedia the article about the encyclopedia. I regret that you think I badger you. I don't mean to. Please reread the policy. It is clear about creative works both in running text and article titles. The Manual of Style is even more explicit in that it states specifically that online encyclopedias should be in italics. It is not badgering to point out the application of both policy and guideline, which are very clear. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hot Stop, I don't think it is reasonable to seriously question that it is reliable that many accept and recommend the style that creative work titles should be used in italics if not used in quotation marks.
    Drewmunn, I think you've grabbed the wrong definition of "complete work". Wikipedia is not completed, as in finished, but it is "complete" in that it is stand alone and is not considered part of something encompassing, like the chapter of a book. In normal, formal uses, if it were part of an encompassing work, it should be written "Wikipedia", and as it is a complete creative work, and not a word or a descriptive title, it should be written in italics. I'm afraid that Paine appears to be completely right, and is being opposed by bogas reasoning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You still haven't provided a single source that italicizes the name 'Wikipedia.' I think it's "reasonable" that should have to provide such sources and not to continue to rehash the same argument. It's time to shit or get off the pot. Hot Stop 03:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Most publications generally don't because it is a fading trend. It is, however, preferred in formal writing. Wikipedia should err on the side of formal.
    NB. I support italics on the first instance, in line with the fact that "Wikipedia" is not a word and requires definition. Once defined, it can be used as a word. Most sources don't feel the need to define even vernacular or neologisms. Wikipedia is special. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • But it's part of Wikimedia... Anyway, the point I was making above was that it's not a publication, but a community. We have an output similar to a publication that, per the discussion below, I would support an italic for should it have its own article. Also, your argument pro italics relies on a "fading trend" that favours formal writing over common usage, therefore failing WP:COMMONNAME. As a side note, you opened a paragraph tag above (<p>) without closing it, so I preserved syntax by swapping it for a <br /> tag.  drewmunn  talk  06:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • WikiMedia is an organisation. Wikipedia is the name of a product. WikiMedia publishes Wikipedia at www.wikipedia.org, and it is free to republish. WP:COMMONNAME, like so many shortcuts, is misleading. It is meant to mean "commonly understood", not vernacular. I don't think this is a question of reliability of sources, but a question of style. Assuming that "Wikipedia" is the published product (as clearly it is), do we use a traditional formal style of italics for creative work titles, and quotation marks for their subsections, or not? I have noticed previously that the use of italics for book and film titles (eg Cosmos (book)) occurs inconsistently. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You and I obviously disagree over the fact that Wikipedia is more than a publication. The fact that there are discussions on nearly every article occurring, and thousands of editors working to create the content at any one time, is my evidence that the output is not the only thing Wikipedia is. I cannot speak for books, but I know that films titles are automatically rendered in italics by the template, according to prior consensus. All of that pales into insignificance however, as the decision made here is one that reflects Wikipedia's existence as a substantially more diverse community than a single product.  drewmunn  talk  07:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia more than the Yongle Encyclopedia? You seem to feel that titling in italics, designating the subject to be the product, denigrates the community of authors? Is the value of the background processes and author processes so fundamentally different to those of Britannica?

I thought <p> was a code for a line feed that didn't break the indentation level. I've gone off to read html tags. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That article is on the encyclopaedia itself. However, this article is as much about the process of creating it and the community built for that purpose as it is the product. The <p> element requires the closing tag, which you didn't include in the original posts you used it in. The lack of closing tag causes containment issues for the browser rendering the page, and can result in content or layout errors. The break tag can be used without a closing tag because it closes itself with the slash.  drewmunn  talk  12:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
[...] there isn't enough content in my opinion to create an article on [Wikipedia the Project] at this time, so it's stuck here
and...
[...] this article is as much about the process of creating it and the community built for that purpose as it is the product.
As you know by now, I have finished the example page where I have determined that by far the largest part of this article is about the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia project and the Wikipedia community both together constitute only a small part of this article. You are welcome to contest this; however, do you think it's likely that you could deem enough instances of "Wikipedia" as not about the encyclopedia to support what you say about how "this article is as much about the process of creating it and the community built for that purpose as it is the product"? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Claiming Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia seems erroneous. It's a website, community, and encyclopedia, thus too broad to be categorized as simply an encyclopedia. Judging by the early consensus that appears to be forming, perhaps the filer should focus on different issue. AniMate 06:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    No one here has made such a claim. Wikipedia is the creative work called an encyclopedia, but Wikipedia also refers to the project and the community. This article is mostly about the creative work. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • AniMate, 'Wikipedia is the title of an encyclopedia. www.wikipedia.org is the website. The community of editors, "Wikipedians" collectively is not referred to as "Wikipedia". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose Having read the discussion on this page thoughtfully, I come to the conclusion that italicizing the name will not enhance the quality or readability of the article. This, in itself, is not a reason to oppose. I oppose because italicizing would harm the quality. There is no clear metric for discerning which instance specifically refers to the project and which refer to the creative work. It would only serve to confuse the reader.--Adam in MO Talk 04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    There is truth to what you say about confusing the reader, Adam. After I completed the example page at User:Paine Ellsworth/Wikipedia, I felt uneasy about the same thing. So I see two possible ways to dispel the confusion. A hatnote that explains the italics that goes something like:
    In this article "Wikipedia" may refer to the Internet encyclopedia, the project or the community. When it refers to the encyclopedia, "Wikipedia" is in italics. For other uses, see Wikipedia (disambiguation)
    That hatnote could replace the existing "About" hatnote. The second way to dispel confusion would be to use italics for all instances of the word "Wikipedia". That's just a suggestion, and I much prefer the hatnote, which I will add to the example page. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(This area is for in-depth discussion about the issues.)
  • Note to David Levy: I'm truly sorry if this RfC upsets you. You may still have issues that need to be dealt with, but even a quick read of the above discussions will show that you are wrong about my acknowledgement of others views, even your views. We have to agree to disagree about what this article covers, that's all. I say it covers the encyclopedia, which it does, mostly. The parts that are not about the encyclopedia per se should be streamlined, summarized, because they have their own articles and do not need to be expounded upon in this article. And thank you for your "borders on insulting" statement. Yes, I do note the irony. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 14:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'm truly sorry if this RfC upsets you.
    The RfC itself doesn't upset me. Your specific approach does. Given the discussion that's occurred, the unqualified statement that "this article is about the encyclopedia" is downright stupefying.
    You may still have issues that need to be dealt with, but even a quick read of the above discussions will show that you are wrong about my acknowledgement of others views, even your views.
    You certainly responded at the time, which renders your subsequent disregard all the more frustrating.
    We have to agree to disagree about what this article covers, that's all.
    It isn't a matter of opinion. The article factually covers Wikipedia as a whole (and always has).
    It's reasonable for you to propose that the article's scope be narrowed. The astonishing part is that you actually have, thereby directly contradicting your own assertion that it already is "about the encyclopedia".
    I say it covers the encyclopedia, which it does, mostly.
    What significant elements of Wikipedia are not covered?
    The parts that are not about the encyclopedia per se should be streamlined, summarized, because they have their own articles and do not need to be expounded upon in this article.
    And again, it's perfectly reasonable to propose such a change. It isn't reasonable to simultaneously claim that the article currently exists in the form that you advocate.
    And thank you for your "borders on insulting" statement. Yes, I do note the irony.
    To what irony are you referring? —David Levy 14:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you again, David for voicing your disagreements. I see no value in rehashing old discourse from bygone talks. I can only remind you that it is not "disregard" that I have for for your views, but merely disagreement. And the irony, of course, can evidently be seen by all but you, in that I seem to remember my own self using a similar phrase in one of my more determined edit summaries. Have you forgotten? That's not like you, not at all. I sincerely hope that you will continue to try to see the true value of my view, which is summarized below in response to Drew. I don't suppose you'll ever agree with it no matter what the outcome of this RfC; however, I am convinced that you have always responded in good faith, and I thank you for that, very much. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    I see no value in rehashing old discourse from bygone talks.
    Agreed. I'm merely asking that you not ignore the discussions from a week ago and a month ago.
    I can only remind you that it is not "disregard" that I have for for your views, but merely disagreement.
    It's both, in a self-contradictory manner. You're simultaneously advocating that the article's scope be narrowed to "the encyclopedia" (a reasonable suggestion with which I strongly disagree) and claiming that this already is its scope.
    And the irony, of course, can evidently be seen by all but you, in that I seem to remember my own self using a similar phrase in one of my more determined edit summaries.
    You're comparing my use of the phrase "borders on insulting" to your assertion that TakuyaMurata's "reverts border on vandalism"? What's the connection, apart from our mutual inclusion of the word "border" or "borders"? Where's the irony, and why do you state that it "can evidently be seen by all but [me]"?
    I'm not trying to be difficult. I honestly don't understand what point you intend to convey. —David Levy 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry you feel that I disregard your views. Nothing could be further from the truth. Until you can see that and acknowledge it, there is no reason to continue discourse, because you will color every opinion with a faulty hue based upon your incorrectly tinted thought that I disregard your views. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's the discourse that's colored my opinion. I'll reassess my position if and when you retract the assertion that "this article is about the encyclopedia" (the scope to which you simultaneously advocate it be changed). —David Levy 06:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note to the Sonicdrewdriver: This article should not need parenthetical dabbing, Drew, because it is mostly and obviously about the encyclopedia, don't you agree? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 14:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    Nope, I see it as about the Wikipedia project. drewmunn talk 14:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Nope, I see it as about the Wikipedia project" While not absurd, I don't think this is correct. The article is centred on the product, with everything presented directly relating to the product. The "Wikipedia project" would refer to the backdoors organisation of the project and would not baldly present facts about the product. However, even if this article were about the backdoors project, "Wikipedia" is still a non-word title that should be used, at least initially, in quotation marks or in italics. As is it a complete, as in stand-alone, work, italics are preferred over quotation marks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Well, your opinion is, of course, valid; however, I just don't see it. To me, the entire lede is about WtE (Wikipedia the Encyclopedia), then after the TOC it's all about the encyclopedia until you reach the subsection about the "Community". That's way too lengthy and could be summarized, since it does have its own article, after all. The next section, "Language editions", is back to being about WtE (it's still the encyclopedia, just in different languages). Then we have the "History" section about none other than WtE, and so on until we come to the "Operation" section which is a short treatment of decidedly not WtE. "Access to content" brings us back to WtE up until the "Impact" section which is still mostly about WtE. Then, after "Related projects", it's either about WtE or more general treatments found in all articles (See also and such). I regret that you cannot see what I see, read what I read, for your opinion carries a lot of weight with me as I'm sure it does with others. Thank you for your honest and sincere attempt to understand, if not agree, with my view. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    I see what you're saying, but I feel that, by classing this article as about an encyclopaedia, we lose any mention about it as a project. If there was a separate article discussing this then I'd be more inclined to agree, but if we say this is about WtE, then we have nothing on Wikipedia the project. The paradox there is that there isn't enough content in my opinion to create an article on WtP at this time, so it's stuck here. As such, I consider this article about WtP, not because that takes up the majority of the content, but because it exists. It's a bit like adding cyanide to water, even the smallest amount makes the water toxic, so unless there's no cyanide, we can't class it as pure water. I'd love there to be a separate article for both WtE and WtP, and in that case, I'd happily support italicisation of the WtE article. However, there's still cyanide here at the moment. drewmunn talk 16:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    Fascinating! I have no words with which to counter what you say. I think you've nailed it, Drew. We'll just have to see which comes out ahead, the drop of cyanide that is WtP, or the ocean of water that is WtE. It was Mother Theresa who once quipped that even though what we do is like a drop in the ocean – still – it is an important drop. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 17:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    To me, the entire lede is about WtE (Wikipedia the Encyclopedia),
    • "collaboratively edited"
    • "written collaboratively by volunteers around the world"
    • "Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site."
    • "wiki (a type of collaborative website)"
    • "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, MySpace, and Facebook. Wikipedia has also been praised as a news source due to articles related to breaking news often being rapidly updated."
    • "The open nature of Wikipedia has led to various concerns, such as the quality of writing, the amount of vandalism and the accuracy of information."
    then after the TOC it's all about the encyclopedia until you reach the subsection about the "Community".
    That's way too lengthy and could be summarized, since it does have its own article, after all.
    So do other related topics, including those pertaining to the "encyclopedia" element. This article is about Wikipedia as a whole.
    The next section, "Language editions", is back to being about WtE (it's still the encyclopedia, just in different languages).
    That section contains information about editors' collaborative efforts, issues they encounter, and the wiki-based infrastructure in place to assist them.
    Then we have the "History" section about none other than WtE,
    That section addresses the project as a whole.
    and so on until we come to the "Operation" section which is a short treatment of decidedly not WtE.
    You skipped the Analysis of content section, which pertains to the the encyclopedia and its creation/editing.
    "Access to content" brings us back to WtE
    ...and a description of the divergent decisions made by volunteer editors writing in different languages. —David Levy 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you again, David. You've enhanced my points and made them more clear to me. Have you come to terms with the fact that I merely disagree with you? I have every high regard for your views, even if I don't agree with them. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    You've enhanced my points and made them more clear to me.
    Please elaborate.
    Have you come to terms with the fact that I merely disagree with you?
    I'm aware of no such fact. I'll reassess my position if and when you stop disagreeing with yourself (by claiming that "this article is about the encyclopedia" while simultaneously advocating that its scope be changed to that). —David Levy 06:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    I do not disagree with myself; I disagree with you. This article is mostly about the encyclopedia. How precisely does this disagree with what I've said before? It does disagree with your position and always has. Maybe it's time for you to reassess whether your criticisms are based on "what is right" or "who is right". It is the right thing to place the article title of this mega-creative work in italics. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    I do not disagree with myself;
    You assert that "this article is about the encyclopedia". You simultaneously advocate that its scope be changed to that. Do you not realize that these positions are mutually exclusive?
    I disagree with you.
    You also disagree with me. I don't object to that.
    This article is mostly about the encyclopedia.
    That isn't what you wrote in your "support" comment. Do you wish to retract your original statement?
    I pointed out numerous instances of information related to other elements of Wikipedia (in sections that you claim are "about WtE"). You responded by stating that "[I]'ve enhanced [your] points and made them more clear to [you]". I asked you to elaborate on this comment, which I don't understand. —David Levy 22:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    You, friend David, place too fine a point on things I've written. And you use those too-fine points to try to make me feel that I've disagreed with myself. It really does make it all the more clear to me that the right thing to do is to italicize the title of this article and all instances of WtE in running text. It's beginning to look as if you secretly agree with me, since methinks thou protests too much! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 07:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    You, friend David, place too fine a point on things I've written. And you use those too-fine points to try to make me feel that I've disagreed with myself.
    I quote your statements, which directly contradict each other.
    It really does make it all the more clear to me that the right thing to do is to italicize the title of this article and all instances of WtE in running text. It's beginning to look as if you secretly agree with me, since methinks thou protests too much!
    I hope that you're joking. —David Levy 11:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    David, I don't follow all of the above conversation, but at the top you start with "collaboratively edited". The product is collaboratively edited. The project/community collaboratively edits. The opening line if the article is talking about the product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note to Teapeat: The use of italics is done, not just to make things easier to read, but to set apart creative works, to set them apart from other running text and in the titles of articles. Italics sets creative works apart so that they may be identified as such, and what is more creative a work in the entire world than the reference work called Wikipedia? Also, Wikipedia, as has been noted many times, is more than just an encyclopedia, and this is all the more reason to set the creative reference work, Wikipedia the encyclopedia, apart from other aspects of Wikipedia. Without italics to set it apart, how is it easier for the reader to discern Wikipedia the encyclopedia from Wikipedia the community, Wikipedia the project, and so forth? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    Those aren't separate entities. They're elements of a single entity.
    I asked you to cite instances in which our failure to draw such a distinction (by italicizing Wikipedia in reference to its "encyclopedia" element and not italicizing it otherwise) reduces the prose's clarity. I await examples. —David Levy 06:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Separate entities" or "elements of a single entity" does not matter. It's the clarity that italics enhances. There is no failure here that reduces the prose's clarity – for you, for me and for others who are familiar with this creative work. General readers might not have the same knowledge of the Wikipedia project, which is why creative works are italicized in the first place, so that they may be easily seen as book titles, film titles, etc., by those readers who are not so familiar with them. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Separate entities" or "elements of a single entity" does not matter.
    Of course it does. You assert that italic formatting would make it "easier for the reader to discern Wikipedia the encyclopedia from Wikipedia the community, Wikipedia the project, and so forth". You're referring to elements of a single entity called "Wikipedia". If they were separate entities, I can understand why readers might confuse them. But they aren't separate, so what confusion could possibly arise? In what context is someone going to read the word "Wikipedia" and misinterpret the intended meaning because it isn't italicized?
    It's the clarity that italics enhances. There is no failure here that reduces the prose's clarity – for you, for me and for others who are familiar with this creative work.
    I didn't ask you to cite examples of how our current formatting reduces the prose's clarity "for you, for me and for others who are familiar with" Wikipedia. By all means, please cite examples of text in which our failure to draw such a distinction (by italicizing Wikipedia in reference to its "encyclopedia" element and not italicizing it otherwise) reduces the prose's clarity for general readers (or even a subset thereof). —David Levy 22:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Methinks thou continues to protest too much. It's all right, David, you don't have to work so hard. The !votes are with you, even though nobody has yet to come up with a good, solid reason why the policy and the guideline should be ignored. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 07:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'll assume that you were unable to find a single example to corroborate your "clarity" argument. —David Levy 11:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Workin' on it, boss." (just a bit occupied at present) – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 07:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, the trouble I'm having with this stems from the fact that it is easy for me to tell whether it's the project, the community or the encyclopedia that is set apart. So picking out a specific example(s) that might be unclear to general readers seems to be very difficult for me. Perhaps it would help if you could show some examples in this article where wp:Wikipedia (defined as the "project namespace") is set apart from the community and the encyclopedia? In other words, the task at hand, which pretty much exemplifies the heart of our dispute, is to find the instances in this article where "Wikipedia" refers to the general idea of the "project" that is Wikipedia as opposed the more specific "Wikipedia" that refers to the "community" that is Wikipedia, and the more specific "Wikipedia" that refers to the "encyclopedia" portion of the project that is Wikipedia. Are you able to do that? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    No, I'm not. That's my point. When we mention Wikipedia, we're aren't referring to something that can be neatly divided in the manner that you've described. That's why I don't even understand how we can draw the distinction that you advocate, let alone how it would provide additional clarity. —David Levy 21:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry; am I to understand that you are unable to draw any distinction between "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia project"? There is no harm nor blame in that, David. The distinction between the project and the encyclopedia can easily be blurred and unclear. In this article, the encyclopedia itself is referred to by the name "Wikipedia" many times, and yet it is not always easy to separate those instances from the overall image of "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia project" in our minds.
    Perhaps a thought experiment from taxonomy can help to understand the way I organize this issue about Wikipedia. In biology, there are occasional taxonomic homonyms, which result from more than one person deciding on names of organisms, reclassifications, etc. I know of no specific instance where a "family" name is a homonym of a "genus" name; however, let us suppose there is one. Let's say that a family of organisms is referred to as "Wikipaediicus", and that there is a genus within that family called "Wikipaediicus". The higher taxonomic level, the family, is never italicized, and the lower level, the genus, is always italicized. This is the logic that I use when I refer to the "family" level Wikipedia, the project, and the "genus" level Wikipedia, the encyclopedia. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 23:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry; am I to understand that you are unable to draw any distinction between "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia project"?
    I didn't say that I'm unable to draw any distinction. I said that Wikipedia can't be neatly divided in the manner that you've described. We can focus on a particular element, but when we mention "Wikipedia", we aren't referring to "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia" or "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia project" in isolation. We're referring to Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia and a wiki, not an encyclopedia or a wiki. (This is why your taxonomical analogy doesn't work.)
    The distinction between the project and the encyclopedia can easily be blurred and unclear.
    So how do you propose we draw a clean distinction (thereby determining which typographical style to use) in relevant articles' prose? And how will this result in increased clarity? —David Levy 06:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Well, it isn't just an analogy. There is a type of taxonomy involved here that I apparently did not make clear. Wikipedia and Wikipedia are homonyms; the former is compared with "Family" in biological classification, and the latter is comparable to "Genus". This makes it clear in my mind, and hopefully clear to others as well, just what needs to be done. My proposal is that of this RfC: Italicize the name of the encyclopedia, Wikipedia, in running text and in the article title in order to draw a clean distinction between the two homonyms. You also appear to allude to the logistics of actually determining which homonym is used in a given context. If the context does not make it clear that "Wikipedia" refers to the encyclopedia, then the project homonym, "Wikipedia", should be used. When it is clear by way of context that it is the encyclopedia that is being described or in some way marked in the text, then the encyclopedia homonym, "Wikipedia", should be used. If there is a dispute about any given usage, it can be discussed. This will result in the same increased clarity for general readers that is found when book titles, film titles and other encyclopedia titles are formatted in italics. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    There is a type of taxonomy involved here that I apparently did not make clear.
    You described it quite clearly (and anyone with a high school education should be familiar with the concept). It simply isn't analogous to Wikipedia.
    Wikipedia and Wikipedia are homonyms; the former is compared with "Family" in biological classification, and the latter is comparable to "Genus".
    I understand and reject the analogy.
    My proposal is that of this RfC: Italicize the name of the encyclopedia, Wikipedia, in running text and in the article title in order to draw a clean distinction between the two homonyms.
    As discussed above, a clean distinction doesn't exist.
    You cited numerous article sections that you believe to be about "Wikipedia the encyclopedia". I pointed out that they contain information about Wikipedia's editors, the procedures that they follow, the issues that they face, and outside evaluations thereof. You responded by stating that "[I] enhanced [your] points and made them more clear to [you]", which I don't understand. You ignored my first request for elaboration and responded to my second request by misquoting Shakespeare and noting that my persistent disagreement has led you suspect that I "secretly agree with [you]" (and have decided to lie for reasons unspecified).
    You also appear to allude to the logistics of actually determining which homonym is used in a given context.
    I'm saying that it's impossible (because no such homonyms exist).
    If there is a dispute about any given usage, it can be discussed.
    You want to create potential disputes across all articles in which "Wikipedia" is mentioned, for the sake of drawing a distinction that no reliable sources recognize.
    This will result in the same increased clarity for general readers that is found when book titles, film titles and other encyclopedia titles are formatted in italics.
    Again, please cite examples of prose that the proposed change would make clearer. This is my fourth request.
    I can only imagine the opposite effect. Readers would encounter a single entity's name written in two different styles (something unseen across reliable sources) and become confused as to what distinction is being drawn (because, as discussed above, the one that you perceive doesn't exist). —David Levy 02:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    There is a distinction. To some of us it is a clear distinction. To others of us there is no distinction. I do not understand your logic; you do not understand mine. Wikipedia (not italicized) and Wikipedia (should be in italics) are indeed homonyms no matter how much you protest. They are like bread (the loaf) and bread (the money) or jack (to lift) and jack (to steal). The are spelled the same, they are pronounced the same, but they mean different things. I will not cite examples where the prose would be clearer if Wikipedia were in italics; I will not because I cannot. Before I could do that, you would have to observe, recognize and accept the distinction between Wikipedia and Wikipedia. Until you do, no amount of example cites would be agreeable nor sensible to you. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 03:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    There is a distinction.
    Yes, there is distinction between "encyclopedia" and "open collaboration". There simply aren't independent "Wikipedia" entities fitting these respective descriptions in a mutually exclusive manner.
    To some of us it is a clear distinction.
    To which reliable sources is it a clear distinction? That matters much more than what you or I believe.
    To others of us there is no distinction.
    I didn't say that there's no distinction. I said that there isn't the type of distinction that you seek to draw.
    I do not understand your logic; you do not understand mine.
    I'm giving you every opportunity to change my mind. You stated that I "don't have to work so hard" because "the !votes are with [me]". If my motive were to win the argument, that would be true. On the contrary, I would happily reconsider my position if you were to present evidence supporting the proposed change (instead of reiterating it's "the right thing to do" because it makes sense to you).
    Wikipedia (not italicized) and Wikipedia (should be in italics) are indeed homonyms no matter how much you protest. They are like bread (the loaf) and bread (the money) or jack (to lift) and jack (to steal).
    Those are examples of separate entities. A loaf of bread and a stack of cash (referred to by the slang term "bread") are two distinct things. "Jacking a car" can mean "lifting a car with a jack" or "stealing a car", which are separate acts.
    The are spelled the same, they are pronounced the same, but they mean different things.
    Conversely, when we mention "Wikipedia", we aren't referring either to one thing that's an encyclopedia or to a different thing that's an open collaboration; we're referring to a single entity that's both.
    Likewise, "Robert Downey, Jr. the actor" and "Robert Downey, Jr. the musician" aren't separate persons. If it were customary to italicize the names of either actors or musicians (but not both), perhaps you'd assert otherwise.
    I will not cite examples where the prose would be clearer if Wikipedia were in italics; I will not because I cannot.
    You've proposed a change, based on the premise that it would enhance the prose's clarity. But you can't cite any examples of prose whose clarity the proposed change would enhance. Do you understand why this weakens your argument?
    Before I could do that, you would have to observe, recognize and accept the distinction between Wikipedia and Wikipedia.
    I have to agree with your position before you're able to present evidence supporting it?
    If you want me to "observe, recognize and accept the distinction", please cite reliable sources that "observe, recognize and accept the distinction". Otherwise, you're asking me to "observe, recognize and accept" your original research. —David Levy 05:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    Technically, there are most certainly independent "Wikipedia" entities fitting these respective descriptions in a mutually exclusive manner. There is the encyclopedia, which contains informative encyclopedic articles about a wide range of subjects, and then there is the encyclopedia project, which is marked by the namespace: Wikipedia:. The project is separate and distinct from the encyclopedia itself. They are mutually exclusive because you won't find project pages in a printed version of the encyclopedia. Project pages are where contributors decide what's best for the encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are the result of several years of discussion, community consensus, more discussion, more consensus, and so on. Those discussions take place in Talk: namespace, which is part of the project. This page, for example, is not part of the encyclopedia, but part of the project. There is no reason to cloud the issue by failing to recognize this distinction. It's quite clear. Wikipedia, the project, and Wikipedia the encyclopedia are usually very easily set apart. My only meaning when I indicated there was no reason to cite examples where the prose would be clearer if Wikipedia were in italics was for you alone. You seem to be the only one thus far who feels incapable of seeing a clear distinction between the project and the encyclopedia. Reliable sources are noted in the discussions I cited above, especially the two RfCs. Inevitably, the encyclopedia is a part of the project – it is "under the wing" of the project – but this does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that they are not two separate and distinct entities. Like a penguin who sits on his egg keeping it warm, the project nurtures the encyclopedia. Like a lioness who fights off a male twice her size to protect her cubs, the project protects the encyclopedia. I'm going to stop now and let this RfC run its course. It's a good idea, but maybe its time has not yet come. I have lots to do elsewhere, David. Keep in touch. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 09:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    Technically, there are most certainly "independent 'Wikipedia' entities fitting these respective descriptions in a mutually exclusive manner." There is the encyclopedia, which contains informative encyclopedic articles about a wide range of subjects, and then there is the encyclopedia project, which is marked by the namespace: Wikipedia:. The project is separate and distinct from the encyclopedia itself.
    Again, I don't dispute the fact that Wikipedia comprises distinct "encyclopedia" and "project coordination" elements. But that's exactly what they are — elements of Wikipedia, not separate "Wikipedias".
    The sentences "Robert Downey, Jr. stars in the film Iron Man." and "Robert Downey, Jr. plays the piano." focus on two distinct elements of Robert Downey, Jr., not two separate individuals with that name. Likewise, the sentences "Wikipedia contains informative articles." and "Wikipedia is edited collaboratively by people around the world." pertain to two distinct elements of a single entity called "Wikipedia", not two separate "Wikipedias" that readers might confuse.
    There is no reason to cloud the issue by failing to recognize this distinction.
    There's no reason to cloud the issue by continually claiming that I've failed to recognize a distinction whose existence I've acknowledged repeatedly. This is a straw man (though I assume that it stems from a sincere misunderstanding of my position, not a deliberate attempt to deceive).
    Wikipedia, the project, and Wikipedia the encyclopedia are usually very easily set apart.
    Examples, please.
    My only meaning when I indicated there was no reason to cite examples where the prose would be clearer if Wikipedia were in italics was for you alone.
    Whether you're unable to cite examples or merely unwilling, the result is the same.
    You seem to be the only one thus far who feels incapable of seeing a clear distinction between the project and the encyclopedia.
    See above.
    Reliable sources are noted in the discussions I cited above, especially the two RfCs.
    Which reliable sources refer to WtE and WtP as two separate entities (as opposed to elements of a single entity called "Wikipedia") and/or convey such a distinction by italicizing "Wikipedia" in reference to the former and not the latter? —David Levy 10:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I can understand the desire for input into this issue through an RFC, the selected recommendations of either support or oppose are simply not broad enough to arrive at an appropriate conclusion. Some may wish to advance an opinion that this article is solely about the encyclopedia, but this is simply not the case. I agree that the article does refer to the encyclopedia and arguably should be about the encyclopedia in its entirety, but in its current form, it is very ambiguous. The article additionally refers to the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters, Wikipedia projects, Wiki software, and the Wikipedia community (among others). I support the italicization of Wikipedia (the encyclopedia), but would not support italics when referring to the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia projects, or the Wikipedia community. In the first case, the subject is a nonprofit organization, rather than a publication. In the second case, the subject is generally a group of people working in collaboration toward a common goal, rather than a publication. It doesn't matter that a project helps support the publication of the encyclopedia, the project itself is not a publication. In the third case, the Wikipedia community, like a project, is group of people working toward a common goal, rather than a publication. While the Wikipedia community's goal is focused on advocacy for open source information and publication of a free-content encyclopedia, the Wikipedia community, as the subject, is not a publication itself. When you take a look at the issue in broad form, it comes down to organization, project, and community versus a product. Project versus product. Unless and until this schizophrenic article presents a clear and articulate focus, the article title should remain without italics. However, when referring to the encyclopedia within the article, Wikipedia should be italicized. Cindy(talk) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    If only we could come that far, Cindy. The Article title policy is specific in that it states that if the name is italicized in running text, then the article title should also be italicized. The problematic issue that you clearly point out is that in this particular article, not every instance of "Wikipedia" would or should be subject to italicization. So how do we proceed? If we put all instances of "Wikipedia" the encyclopedia in italics, then how many of those instances would be required to compel us to say, "This article is mostly about the encyclopedia, so the article title ought to be italicized"? The policy seems to cover only those articles that are clearly all about the creative work, but says nothing about "schizophrenic" articles like this one.
    I am presently at work on a copy of this article to see just how many instances in running text should be in italics. There are 291 total instances of "Wikipedia" in this article that may or may not be subject to italicization. I would be happy to see the running text Wikipedias in italics and then begin a new discussion to determine to what extent the italics in running text are needed to justify putting the article title in italics. Of course, an interim discussion would first be needed to get a consensus to italicize appropriate instances of "Wikipedia" in running text. Such a discussion could possibly run concurrently with this one. That seems to be what you suggest, am I correct? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 21:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    When you wrote that you were "going to stop now and let this RfC run its course", did you mean that you intended to stop replying to me? If so, I hope that you'll reconsider.
    The problematic issue that you clearly point out is that in this particular article, not every instance of "Wikipedia" would or should be subject to italicization.
    Again, please cite reliable sources that format "Wikipedia" in the manner that you advocate (italicized when referring to "Wikipedia the encyclopedia" and non-italicized otherwise).
    Do you deny that most reliable sources don't italicize "Wikipedia" at all?
    I am presently at work on a copy of this article to see just how many instances in running text should be in italics.
    I look forward to seeing it.
    Of course, an interim discussion would first be needed to get a consensus to italicize appropriate instances of "Wikipedia" in running text.
    At this juncture, there clearly is no consensus that any such instances are appropriate (though I promise to view your draft with an open mind).
    Such a discussion could possibly run concurrently with this one.
    Why, in your view, is a separate discussion called for? —David Levy 01:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    It wasn't you, personally, David, I assure you. Ask a new question, as you have here, and I am happy to respond to you. For as many reliable sources as I could show you, you could probably find several others that do not put Wikipedia in italics. That was an issue at the RfC and yet, a change to the status quo prevailed. The main issue here appears to be whether this article is only about the project, as you propone, or is it only about the encyclopedia, or is it mostly about one or the other, as I propone that it's mostly about the online encyclopedia. In my view, this RfC just follows suit after the MoS RfC and the policy RfC. Both are clear and succinct on this issue in terms of articles that are clearly and only about online encyclopedias. Since this article, imho, is mostly about the encyclopedia, then Drew's response may very well be prophetic. The small part of this article that is about the project might just be a drop in the bucket, but it might still be a very important drop. So, Cindy suggests that to discuss both the running text part of this RfC and the article title part just might be too broad an issue. My answer to you is "I don't know if a separate discussion is called for." It was just a suggestion, which is what I thought Cindy was making. What do you think? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 16:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    However, when referring to the encyclopedia within the article, Wikipedia should be italicized.
    Can you cite instances fitting this description and/or reliable sources that draw such a distinction? —David Levy 01:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm on a wikibreak (for school works) and do not intend to participate in the discussion, but I just want to mention this academic paper [1] does use the italic Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    Aside from the issue of italics (and thank you very much for that, Taku!), that paper supports what I was recently told by a newly registered Wikipedian that I recorded on my talk page. It seems that Wikipedia is finally beginning to make a lasting impression! ("despite whatever qualms their teachers, mentors, or ancestors may have") – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'd say that Wikipedia reached that point years ago. —David Levy 01:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    I don't have a link handy, but I once saw an academic paper in which "WikiPedia" (written in CamelCase) was used. I'd assume that the italic "Wikipedia" is more common than that, but the non-italic "Wikipedia" predominates by a wide margin (irrespective of context). I've never encountered a reliable source that pointedly italicizes "Wikipedia" in certain contexts and not others (for the purpose of conveying a distinction). —David Levy 01:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: this discussion has been open for a week now, and neither person is going to back down or change their views. As of this moment, there is unanimous opposition to the proposal, so it's unlikely to get through any time in the near future. I suggest, Paine, you start preparing (in your sandbox or user space) a list of sources that corroborate your proposal, and write a detailed way that you plan to deal with the difference in content between WtE and WtP. That way, should you choose to take this matter up again in the future, you'll have a battle plan, and it'll help break the cyclic disagreements occurring here at the moment.  drewmunn  talk  06:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you, Drew, that is wise counsel. You are right about the !votes, however when the rationales are also considered, there really hasn't been that much opposition, in my humble opinion. Even you, while you never changed your !vote, you have shown recognition of the fact that this article is mostly about Wikipedia the encyclopedia, with only a smattering of "cyanide" dripped in. As I've noted many times, my sources are the Article titles policy and the Manual of Style. There are plenty of good arguments on both sides on the talk pages of those project articles, as well as outside sources to support both sides. And yet the policy was changed by the RfC and the guideline was updated, as well. There has still been no reason given to ignore the policy and guideline that can outweigh the community consensus achieved in the policy and guideline articles. That is what backs this RfC, and the only real opposition has been maintenance of the status quo. There were a good many editors in those RfC discussions who wanted to maintain the status quo and to eliminate italics formatting altogether. They did not prevail. I did not know what to expect this time, but I do feel like I've done all I can. That is what I do – all I can do to put things right. The status quo is a powerful thing and may effectively predominate this time, but it never prevails forever. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Example page

I have completed the example page, and it can be viewed at:

Perhaps this subsection can be used for comments about the example page. I probably didn't do a perfect job as I may have used italics when I shouldn't have and vice-versa. Please be kind. Also, I feel that I must clarify some things for some of the opposers above. I shall do that in direct response to them. As I have a busy day ahead, I shall attend to that a bit later. Joys to all! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 11:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Having read it briefly- give me strength! This has to be the most useless idea and uselessly inconsistent idea in the entire history of Wikipedia. If you go half way down the italics suddenly stop, because apparently you seem to think that Wikipedia's administrators aren't part of Wikipedia, because you think that Wikipedia isn't an ongoing project, part of which is an encyclopedia. Other examples are things like Wikipedia's bots, some of which act on main space Wikipedia, but many of which work on talk pages: Wikipedia. So you italicised that, but you shouldn't have done. So basically, even you aren't able to follow your own rules correctly. What hope does anyone else have?
These kinds of rules are both pointless and deliberately elitist. Unlike some grammatical rules that reduce ambiguity where getting the rule wrong makes the sentence mean something completely different, this kind of silly idea does nothing of the kind.
I could kind of, almost, understand it if you just wanted to italicise Wikipedia everywhere, that would be a pointless and impractical, and cannot always be achieved, since plaintext files have no way of indicating italics, but the idea of selectively italicising Wikipedia makes me want to hunt you down and punch you (not that I'm going to, at all, but that's how it makes me feel.)Teapeat (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
So what you're asking everyone to do is go through every piece of text in Wikipedia, and in the entire world, and change SOME of the 'Wikipedia's to italics according to some very complicated rule that even you don't always get right.Teapeat (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I so glad I asked people to be kind, Teapeat! I cannot imagine what you would have said otherwise! Thank you, though, for your welcome candor. This is no more a useless idea than it is useless to italicize taxonomies, book titles, album titles, film titles, and so on. This idea is indeed consistent with putting the titles of creative works in italics. The items in the example page that I did not italicize seemed to point more toward the project than toward the encyclopedia. It is the encyclopedia that is the creative work, the "product" that should be in italics. The encyclopedia project is like the author of a book. Just because we put the book's title in italics, but not the author's name, does not mean that we're being "elitist" and shunning the author. What were you thinking when you wrote that? It's ludicrous. All this is is a formatting issue that will set Wikipedia, the product, the encyclopedia, apart from both non-creative products and works and from other aspects of Wikipedia that are not part of the "product", such as the community and the project. So come on down and try to punch me if you like. Jim Bowie and I will be ready for you. Your violent reaction to this simple matter of formatting says a lot about you, Teapeat. All I'm asking is for us to emphasize the creative work in the same manner as other creative works are formatted for emphasis. And I believe I already noted that I might not have gotten them all correct. There are those contributors who think that any italics is incorrect, and there are those who feel as you do that some of the non-italicized instances should have been italicized. For a page like this, only further discussion will bring contributors to agreement about when italics may or may not apply, and yes, there are some instances that are not so obvious. So please calm down and be civil. There is no reason for us to threaten each other with your fists and my Bowie knives!>) – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion that you want to do this has been noted, we have had to face pages upon pages of you posting how much you want to do this, so far only one other person has agreed with you, and even he was tending towards neutral, everyone else has thought it's a bad or even terrible idea. Perhaps you think that if you post a few more pages of how much you want this, people will suddenly discover that they also really wanted to have to italicise Wikipedia in about half the places they use it; but I'm kinda doubting it.Teapeat (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime I'm going to start a thread on the relevant WP:MOS talk page to make it explicit that Wikipedia should not be italicised!!!Teapeat (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
That's already been done, Teapeat, and I gave the link in the RfC intro. Here it is again, just for you! And the only reason "I want" this to be so is that I believe it's the right thing to do. It's backed by policy, by the guideline, and by lots of contributors before me. When I see a Wikipedia page that should, according to community consensus, be emphasized with italics, then I do all I can do to see that the consensus is not ignored. What, prey tell, is wrong with that? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary

This RfC has run its 30 days and is now closed. While the opposition !votes outnumber the supportive !votes (11 to 4), we must remember that Wikipedia (the project) is not a democracy and that the !voters' rationales and the discussions that result are to be heavily weighted to yield the consensus. I, of course, have an opinion as to what the consensus is; however, my opinion is but a small thing. In my humble opinion, there has been no consensus found to either change the format of the article title or to maintain the status quo. Under these conditions, the status quo is usually maintained. It is my hope that, if the format of the title of this article is to remain unchanged, can we at least agree that all the instances of "Wikipedia" in running text that refer specifically to the encyclopedia be formatted in italics? This would support the opinion that this article is about Wikipedia in a general sense that encompasses its entirety – the project, the community and the encyclopedia – so that this article's title is fully justified to remain in its present format. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 00:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
PS. Also, perhaps the hatnote should be clarified? Something like:

This article is about the Internet encyclopedia, the community and the project. For other uses see Wikipedia (disambiguation)

and if we agree that "Wikipedia" in running text, when it refers to the encyclopedia, is to be formatted in italics, then something more, like:

This article is about the Internet encyclopedia, the community and the project. When "Wikipedia" refers to the encyclopedia it is formatted in italics. For other uses see Wikipedia (disambiguation)
Postscript added by  PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX!
No, there isn't anything remotely resembling agreement for such a change. I, for one, became exhausted and withdrew from the discussion to avoid wasting more of my time on endless repetition. But rest assured that I examined your draft and found the formatting illogical, nonconsecutive, and downright bewildering. In your mind, all sorts of "Wikipedia" mentions refer specifically to "Wikipedia the encyclopedia", despite the direct relevance of the underlying project and its editors. That's why this perplexing idea makes sense to you.
You claim that the change would provide enhanced clarity, but you refuse to cite one example of prose whose meaning would be made clearer.
The first hatnote edit that you've proposed above completely misses the point behind its existence, which we discussed even before the RfC began. You also ignored that exchange when Topperfalkon based his/her support upon the very same misunderstanding.
The second hatnote edit (which you also suggested on 22 May) is even more incredible, as its intended purpose would be to mitigate the confusion stemming from the arbitrary and unorthodox formatting used by zero reliable sources.
Your attempt to spin the above into "no consensus" and cite this as justification for exactly the change that you proposed previously is astonishing. —David Levy 01:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing, David Levy. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 05:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was initially intrigued by the question of italicization and made some comments high up on the wall of text this page has become. Although I didn't weigh in during the RfC, I'd like to state for the record now that I do not think there is consensus for italicizing Wikipedia in the contexts you've suggested. Further, after reading the various points made above and rethinking my own thinking, I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia should not italicize its own name in any context.

    Although there are valid arguments for using italics in certain contexts, I do not believe that doing so is necessary; leaving it unitalicized is consistent both with longstanding convention here and with accepted practice in the wider world. Further, I believe that trying to determine appropriate contexts for italicization and then attempting to consistently enforce the resulting style would be quite literally impossible, leading to much wasted time and effort and many unproductive, unnecessary arguments. As a writer and editor in real life, and as someone with a longtime interest in typography, I am a stickler for precision in grammar, usage, style, and all of the elements that comprise the English language in its written forms. I am also a realist. This is a collaborative project involving thousands of people, many of whom have neither the facility for discerning subtleties of style nor any particular desire to do so. And why should they? There are far more pressing matters at issue every day. I commend you, Paine Ellsworth, for raising the question in the first place, but on balance I do not find your reasoning persuasive. I have to say that I hope this discussion can soon be put to rest. Prolonging it is unlikely to produce blinding epiphanies for anyone on either side of the fence. Rivertorch (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

    And therein lies my problem, I suppose. From the beginning for me it has been a simple matter, as simple as recently when I came across the Scholarpedia article and found it not italicized. This is one of the examples given in the MoS as an online encyclopedia that should be italicized, and it still had not been reformatted. It was a simple matter for me to take 10 minutes and reformat it. But that article is solely about an online encyclopedia. This article is indeed about more than just an online encyclopedia. I have been won over to that realization by Drew, by Taku, yes, by David Levy and others. Yet it is still a simple matter for me that when the word "Wikipedia" refers to the actual creative work, the encyclopedia (in running text), then it should be in italics. I found it quite easy to determine which instances of "Wikipedia" to italicize on my example page (which by the way now reflects an unitalicized title with a small clarification added to the Lede in green letters, and a revised hatnote), and I find it so hard to believe that other good editors are unable to objectively perform the same edits. Perhaps you are exceedingly accurate, though. As strongly as I feel that it is more self-serving and biased POV to not italicize "Wikipedia" when it refers to the creative work, I will cease trying to convince others of what I see as a simple truth: To italicize Wikipedia when it should be italicized is a simple act of good editing, an improvement that goes right along with similar improvements to other articles about creative works. Thank you for weighing in, Rivertorch! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 07:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    Yet it is still a simple matter for me that when the word "Wikipedia" refers to the actual creative work, the encyclopedia (in running text), then it should be in italics. I found it quite easy to determine which instances of "Wikipedia" to italicize on my example page
    And others strongly disagree with your determinations. As I noted before the RfC began, I dispute the underlying premise that a clean distinction can be drawn in the manner that you seek.
    and I find it so hard to believe that other good editors are unable to objectively perform the same edits.
    Indeed, you find it hard to believe that any sensible person could disagree with you on this point. That's a major part of the problem.
    I know how frustrating it is to feel strongly about something and fail to convince the Wikipedia community. But when it happens, it doesn't mean that others are blind to a "simple truth".
    In this instance, you're advocating a mixed style that no reliable sources use. I hope that you can understand why its acceptance would require more than your personal assurance that it makes sense. —David Levy 08:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    You seem to think very little of me, and that has been your problem in all this. You have been unable to see the good of the argument because you are too wrapped up in the bad of the person presenting the argument. The major proposal was to format the title of this article in italic text. You and the other opposers have won that argument. You've won me over. The article title should not be formatted in italics. As for the running text thing, that's not a matter of opinion. It's policy and guideline to format creative works in italics. How hard is it for you or me or anyone else to see the phrase:
    • "Wikipedia's 26 million articles in 286 languages..." (from the Lede) or
    • "Articles in Wikipedia are loosely organized..." (from the first section)
    ...and be unable to determine whether or not they refer to creative work? I suppose we're both bewildered and astonished by many things about this argument, David. I would like to leave it with you on a good note, because I would never want ill feelings between myself and another editor. So please have a good life full of enjoyment and pleasurable challenge. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    I have no ill feelings toward you. I've enthusiastically supported another of your proposals. I don't doubt that you're a good person. But in my view, the ideas in question — while clearly presented in good faith — are bad.
    On this particular issue, our communication has been quite frustrating (for both of us, I'm sure). Your continued insistence that you're right (and that this is "not a matter of opinion") leaves very little room for productive discourse.
    I've attempted to explain that my interpretation of the guideline differs from yours (and also that our rules are descriptive, not prescriptive). I've addressed the difference between separate entities and elements of a single entity. I've opined that the formatting you advocate is confusing and noted that it reflects no existing usage by reliable sources. You refuse to acknowledge that I've even provided such rationales. Instead, you assert that I've ignored your good argument because I dislike you.
    I don't dislike you. I wish to reciprocate your well wishes. I hope that our future interaction is less stressful and more fruitful. —David Levy 18:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "This RfC has run its 30 days and is now closed" What? How can it be closed when it is not in a colored box? A neutral summary from an uninvolved editor would be very welcome. A summary from a committed participant, especially the instigator, shouldn't be presented as a neutral summary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    SmokeyJoe, I agree that a summary from an uninvolved editor would be very welcome. I did not say that my summary, as an involved editor, was "neutral", although I did try to remain as unbiased as I could. As you have seen, I was apparently unable to come across as unbiased. RfCs normally run for 30 days and then are automatically closed. They can run longer or shorter and any editor can make that call. Presumably, most of the participants are tired of the argument and need a nice long break from it. That does include myself. If you, as a supporter of the RfCs proposal, were to see fit to continue this RfC or start a new one about putting Wikipedia in italics in running text when it refers to the encyclopedia, then you would have my continued and earnest support. Thank you very much! Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    No offense intended, but you seem incapable of unbiased analysis of this discussion. You stated that "the only real opposition has been maintenance of the status quo" (and made several similar comments), which shows that you don't even recognize the opposing arguments. I don't expect you to agree with them, of course, but you should be able to perceive their existence. Your apparent inability to do so explains your belief that no consensus exists. —David Levy 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    No offense intended right back at you, "but" you seem incapable of realizing that I have overturned my statement that "the only real opposition has been maintenance of the status quo" by actually siding with the status quo as pertains to the title of this article. So your continued insistence that I don't even recognize the opposing arguments becomes insensitive and incorrect. There is no consensus to change the format of the article title – yes, I get that and I agree with it now. The consensus in regards to whether or not to italicize "Wikipedia" in running text when it refers directly to the encyclopedia is not so clear, don't you agree? Admittedly, as I go back over my example page I see several instances where I may have been incorrect to italicize the word, but the vast majority of the italics are when "Wikipedia" directly refers to the creative work, the encyclopedia. As far as I'm concerned, while this RfC has ended, the consensus on this particular part of the issue is still up in the air. It would be "less stressful and more fruitful" if you could please move on and cease making your faulty and insensitive statements about things I've said that no longer apply. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 20:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    No offense intended right back at you, "but" you seem incapable of realizing that I have overturned my statement that "the only real opposition has been maintenance of the status quo" by actually siding with the status quo as pertains to the title of this article.
    No, I don't believe that agreeing to italicize only some instances of "Wikipedia" — as you proposed previously — automatically "overturns" that statement, nor has anything else that you've written (until now) appeared to contradict it. (Your belief that the above discussion resulted in "no consensus" "to maintain the status quo" certainly seems to reflect a belief that the opponents' arguments were weak.)
    It isn't my intention to misrepresent your position. Your retraction of this assertion is duly noted. I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part, but I won't apologize for failing to read your mind.
    So your continued insistence that I don't even recognize the opposing arguments becomes insensitive and incorrect.
    You are refusing to recognize them. You're still expressing bafflement as to why I don't agree that references to "Wikipedia the community" and "Wikipedia the encyclopedia" can and should be distinguished. I've explained why, over and over.
    Again, I don't expect you to agree with me. I only ask that you acknowledge my arguments' existence.
    There is no consensus to change the format of the article title – yes, I get that and I agree with it now. The consensus in regards to whether or not to italicize "Wikipedia" in running text when it refers directly to the encyclopedia is not so clear, don't you agree?
    No, I don't. I've stated that repeatedly too. It's my belief that your proposal — in its entirety — has been rejected. (Of course, I'm as biased as you are.) —David Levy 22:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Off topic-b

Thread is unrelated to the topic of this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

-- Porn --

What are the regulations regarding porn? For example, in an article about a "money shot" can we use a pic of what a "money shot" really is?

Thanks in advance! --68.118.201.68 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article regarding Wikipedia, not for general questions. Your question is best suited for the WP:PORN community.  drewmunn  talk  16:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Parody of itself?

There is a category of Parodies of Wikipedia, which so far does not contain Wikipedia.

"By an unconscious self-parody I mean a poem or a passage in which the author is both characteristic and unintentionally absurd. I regret it has not been possible to include any Carlyle because, when I came to look through that fulgurating prose again after a happy lapse of thirty years since I had to read it in Freshman English at Yale, I discovered it was all self-parody."

— Dwight MacDonald, Parodies, p. 474

Dwight MacDonald dichotomizes self-parodies as either conscious or unconscious. Is Wikipedia unconsciously or consciously a self-parody?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

May I ask, why would one think that this encyclopedia is a self-parody of any kind? Wouldn't that mean that Wikipedia is effectively in a slow slew on a slippery slope to self-slaughter? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 01:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
btw, KW, you and your quote have been quoted in an essay at wp:r-e-s-p-e-c-t ! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 06:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Source Number 53 is Wrong!

This source cites the book the World is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman. As an owner of this book, I became interested and went to that page. Nothing it talks about is related to what it sourced on the wikipedia page. Please fix this!! Remove it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.178.206 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is possible that the source quotes from a different edition to the one you are reading, so it may still be accurate.  drewmunn  talk  06:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
As Sonicdrewdriver said, this book has multiple editions. Can you check if yours has the same ISBN as the cited source? —me_and 09:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Spin speed in washers.

Looking for the average RPM's on top load clothes washers that do a "good" job. Wikipedia article on history of washers shows 600 to 1500 range and I would like to know if testing has shown a median choice. (Dede Briley (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC))

This page is for discussing improvements to the article entitled "Wikipedia", not for general discussion. Your question may be suited better to a different article.  drewmunn  talk  15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to be written as an advertisement or promotion for the subject. 49.249.201.68 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I think the first and third paragraphs in the lead wouldn't be acceptable on almost any other article. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold enough to say so on Wikipedia! 49.249.27.98 (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Having just taken a look, I disagree. They're broadly positive, yes, but it's verifiable and the lead also contains criticism of the project.
Of course, if you think you can improve matters, be bold and do so!
—me_and 14:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.245.249 (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove the protection and I will be bOLD enough to make your head spin.

—you_you 00:00, 30 April 1945 (WTC) — Preceding confusingly-signed comment actually added by 49.249.27.4 (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly non notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.27.4 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected, yes. WP:SEMI has instructions for how you can still make changes (summary: register an account and get it (auto)confirmed or write up the changes you want and request someone else make them). —me_and 10:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

should it be mentioned somewhere that Wikipedia is not a reliable source?--108.7.212.5 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really, because its job is not to be a source. It is, in of itself, a collection of sources. Wikipedia tries to be as reliable as possible, but the sources cited within the article are where people looking for references should be searching.  drewmunn  talk  16:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia site age

If Wikipedia gets past 20 years or older, Do you think the site will be shutdown in the future?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

1.7 Languages minor edits

(English, Dutch, German, French, Swedish Wikipedia, Italian, Spanish, and Russian),

the word Wikipedia should be moved to the end to read

(English, Dutch, German, French, Swedish, Italian, Spanish, and Russian Wikipedia),

five more have over 700,000 articles (Polish, Japanese, Portuguese, and Chinese Wikipedia)

only four languages are listed because Vietnamese (11th in the whole list, 3rd in the list having 700k..1M articles) is missing. It should be added like this

five more have over 700,000 articles (Polish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Portuguese, and Chinese Wikipedia)

the number of languages with articles 100'000+ needs to be increased from 33 to 38.

the number of languages with articles 10'000+ needs to be increased from 73 to 74.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.125.101 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Update on one piece of information!

Hello! It says in the article that the Wikipedia is "ranking seventh globally among all websites on Alexa as of July 2013." According to www.alexa.com/topsites Wikipedia is ranking sixth globally. Thank you. (Just an update)


Omar Elgazzar (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Image: YOU SUCK!!

I was reading the article when, in the "Community" section, I saw an image of an editing screen. In the editing screen, there were the extremely large words "YOU SUCK!!" The image was captioned with something about demographics, and when I tapped on the image, it brought me to an image file with a bar graph of the demographics of Wikipedia users. I believe that this is the work of a talented vandal. I hope that someone more experienced than I could replace it with the appropriate image. Max0987654321 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a problem with your browser? The image you're referring to is a still from a Weird Al Yankovic reference to Wikipedia. You can see it here. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening

I would like to suggest amending the fourth paragraph so it reads as follows (my changes are in bold):


The open nature of Wikipedia has led to various concerns, such as the quality of writing, the amount of vandalism, and the accuracy of information. Some articles contain unverified or inconsistent information, though a 2005 investigation in Nature concluded that the science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors". In response, Britannica claimed that the study's methodology and conclusions were flawed. Nature did not accept this criticism, and produced a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal in response to Britannica's main objections.


My reasons for this are as follows:

Firstly, I think that 'concluded' is a more neutral and objective verb than 'showed'. The latter implies that what Nature said was definitively true, while the former simply reports the facts.

Secondly, the style of the paragraph as it currently stands clearly leads the reader to the conclusion that Nature was the correct party in this dispute. Regardless of whether or not we might consider this to be the case, it is not for wikipedia to do this. I suggest that my proposed amendments remove this problem.Trebble123 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2013 Trebble123

For the reasons given above, I would like to replace the following paragraph:


The open nature of Wikipedia has led to various concerns, such as the quality of writing, the amount of vandalism, and the accuracy of information. Some articles contain unverified or inconsistent information, though a 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors". Britannica replied that the study's methodology and conclusions were flawed, but Nature reacted to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.


with the following:


The open nature of Wikipedia has led to various concerns, such as the quality of writing, the amount of vandalism, and the accuracy of information. Some articles contain unverified or inconsistent information, though a 2005 investigation in Nature concluded that the science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors". In response, Britannica claimed that the study's methodology and conclusions were flawed. Nature did not accept this criticism, and produced a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal in response to Britannica's main objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebble123 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I think your suggested changes have merit and you've made a good case that they'd constitute an improvement per WP:NPOV. I'm almost inclined to just make the edit. My concern is that the wording in the lede is supposed to summarize the content in the main body of the article, so I'd rather see the relevant section changed first or at the same time so that (1) they say essentially the same thing but (2) the wording in the lede is more concise. Would you be willing to propose wording that would accomplish that? (If not, I'll work on it, but not today.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the top template to say that this is answered, sorry if this is wrong. Matty.007 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Programming language of Wikipedia????

I want to know what's the programming language of Wikipedia? C language?219.151.150.222 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussion the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia. This question would be more suited to the reference desk.  drewmunn  talk  15:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia/Archive_20&oldid=1134314716"