Wikipedia talk:Who writes Wikipedia?

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
Top	This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Origins of this page

Yer, I drafted this page after reading the pros and cons of a proposal to update the Wikipedia tagline. Given the comments by Nowither on the failed proposal, I don't want a link to a disclaimer, which is written in legalese, but I do feel that an educational statement written in simple language would be of value to new users of the Wikipedia.

My primary concern is the potential for schoolchildren to assume that all Wikipedia entries are of equally high quality. This link documents the popularity of Wikipedia among kids: Alexa's Most Popular in Kids and Teens Category. This MSNBC news article discusses how uncritically the typical student entering college approaches research: Colleges look to test internet IQ.

It is my intention to propose that Wikipedia include a new link in its navigation menu to this page (Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia), once it has been edited and reached a stable consensus among Wikipedians. Mamawrites 08:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't want a link to a disclaimer, which is written in legalese, but I do feel that an educational statement written in simple language would be of value to new users of the Wikipedia. "

I definitely agree. Well-written.

IMPROVE ALL WIKIPEDIA MATH, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING ARTICLES!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.160.89 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is my intention to propose that Wikipedia include a new link in its navigation menu"

I still like the idea of a tagline change with a link to an article like this. We could link to here instead of the introduction with my proposal:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Or not. :-) Oh well... — Omegatron 14:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the writing. If you'd like to advance your own proposal, I would support it, but I suspect that it would be doomed. I'm trying to be a political realist, and given that Jim Wales expressed his opposition to changing the tagline, I figured I would try another tactic to see if I could get support for my aims. Mamawrites 15:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried editing the tagline itself, but it was reverted. :-) Then I said we should change it, and someone else came along and turned it into 1 of 543742435 different proposals and everyone hated the idea. :-\ I've written Jimbo on his talk page about my little tagline, but no response so far. If you like it, maybe leave a comment on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#I_oppose_this_.5Btagline.5D_change. — Omegatron 15:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Omegatron, the proposal page was never just about your "that anyone can edit" idea, it was about advising (warning) users that Wikipedia articles are vetted differently than in other encyclopedias. Lighten up! ;) -- Sitearm | Talk 16:42, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Change to "assessment of article quality"

It says: The best way to verify the accuracy of a particular statement is to find at least two independent sources which affirm that statement. So, if a statement is made in Wikipedia, and the same claim is also stated in a different source (such as a library book), it is more likely to be accurate. I do not agree that a Wikipedia article can be counted as an independent source to verify another Wikipedia article. Maybe a source cited in another article, but in that case cite the original source not the article. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 16:42, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Citing Sources and Wikipedia Disclaimers

I think this page is a good idea. My ultimate goal is some way to inform readers that Wikipedia articles are not formally vetted. I would prefer every article page have a prominent link to such a disclaimer. Given the opposition to such a disclaimer, this page with the proposed navigation link seems a good compromise.

Concerning citing sources, the proper way to cite sources in research is to go to the original source. So, if Wikipedia states a fact and gives a reference, the researcher should go to the cited original source. Then, if it checks out, the researcher should cite that original source, not the Wikipedia article. (Sometimes researchers take shortcuts and fail to follow up on sources, citing them without checking them out first.)

Most readers are not researchers, however, and assume the editors have performed the proper research. Casual users (school reports, etc.) often cite encyclopedias. After all, why have an encyclopedia if you can't believe what it says?

Not every source is considered equal. Using newspapers as an analogy, it would be acceptable to cite a fact stated in the New York Times, but not in the National Enquirer. They are both newspapers, but one has a better reputation (for facts) than the other. In the final analysis, people have to decide if they will accept a Wikipedia reference or not. I just hope Wikipedia makes it more plain how articles are created so as not to earn a poor reputation for accuracy. --Wyatts 17:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search of references to the "National Enquirer" is Talk:Wikipedia and I want to comment on this some 3 years later. The Wikipedia in 2005 was full and perhaps still is people who want to puff up the "vetting" of the Wikipedia comparing it the so-called (look up to the sky) gold standard of journalism, the New York Times, and not the (spit on the ground) National Enquirer. When it comes to the adultery of politicians, it does appear in 2008 that the National Enquirer can be more accurate and objective than the New York Times. This says a lot about those publications, but let me speak to "who writes the Wikipedia". Editors needs to be aware that the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, the AP, the National Enquirer etc. all have a political agenda that interacts with their desire to make money, attract advertisers and readers/viewers. Read what journalism analysts are saying in their post-mortem analysis of the John Edwards extramarital affair: the mainstream media failed to follow the leads in the Edwards story and thereby failed to give the truth about Edwards to their consumers. Is the Wikipedia a prisoner of the MSM filter? patsw (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say tertiary sources will never be less biased than the best secondary sources. Hardly shocking when you phrase it that way. Pirate^Argh!!1! 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

This article is simple, clear, references its sources, and moves things forward in the discussion about advising users how Wikipedia articles are vetted differently than in other encyclopediass . It would make an excellent add to the Help page list of information and resources for contributers, which is already linked on the navigation toolbar between "Random article" and "Contact us". -- Sitearm | Talk 21:57, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Review comments as well...

I like the idea of the page. However, let's address the technical issues first: I'm not sure we admins can edit the navigation and toolbox margins - are those part of MediaWiki? (If not, we would have to get a developer) About the actual page - IMHO, we do need a non-legalized page about Wikipedia. The current revision looks decent, though it could be improved. (For example, I feel we need to mention vandalised articles - explain to readers who might click George W. Bush and see a vandalised version, for example...) I'll look it over again when I have some more time... In the meanwhile, I do suggest (if you haven't done so already) that you post this proposal up at bot WP:VP and WP:AN to gain more input. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sentences about vandalism and reverting. -- Sitearm | Talk 01:58, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like an optimistic, non-apologetic, non-legalese disclaimer. That's a good thing. — Omegatron 02:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Omegatron! And in response to Flcelloguy's question, I know that Angela recently made a proposal, which was implemented, to add a permalink option in the toolbox menu options for article pages. So I don't think it would be that difficult to add a link to the navigation menu, if we can assemble the right kind of support. Since I'm still so new here, I'm not really sure how to go about doing that. Does anyone have any advice? Mamawrites 11:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of the comments on my proposal at the Village Pump:

Proposal for a new navigation link

I propose that Wikipedia include a new link in its navigation menu to the page Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia. My primary concern is the potential for students to assume that all Wikipedia entries are of equally high quality. This MSNBC news article discusses how uncritically the typical student entering college approaches research: Colleges look to test internet IQ. This link documents the popularity of Wikipedia among kids: Alexa's Most Popular in Kids and Teens Category.

There is precedent for adding a new menu item to the toolbox; User:Angela made a proposal within the past few months for a "permanent link" option to be added at the bottom of the toolbox menu. It appears in all main articlespace pages. While users of the MediaWiki software may not make use of a link that says "Who writes wikipedia", I bet they would all appreciate a link called "About this site" or something similar. Ideally, this link would be customized for each installation of the MediaWiki software.

What do others think? Is this worth asking the programmers to do? Mamawrites 11:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced any one in the target audience will click it. Though I do think a very interesting article could be written ont he subject. RJFJR 14:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to have such a link in a prominent place. I've heard too many stories of people using Wikipedia as a more authoritative source than they should be, and getting burned by vandalism, POV warriors, and the like. — Omegatron 17:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really think a link to Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia would be necessary, but I think that having an "About this site" is a great idea! Perhaps right under "Random article"... Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia is linked at the bottom of every page already. Something like "Who writes Wikipedia" could be considered for addition to that article. --Michael Snow 01:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I asked for a link on that page (it's protected, so I can't just insert one myself). I still think a top-level link in the navigation page would be valuable, though. Mamawrites 08:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:About isn't protected. I think the link there is enough. The permalink was a tool that needed to be on every page, whereas information about the project can be found easily enough via the about page so more links aren't needed. Angela . 23:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused; it's the disclaimer page that is protected. I have added a link in Wikipedia:About. Since Angela doesn't think the top-level link is needed, I'll just continue my alternate strategy of linking Who writes Wikipedia to lots of the places that are mainpage links... it'll take two clicks to find, but hopefully people will stumble across it through Help or Wikipedia:About. Mamawrites 10:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rewrite

here -- 86.142.251.120 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An addition

Just a suggestion, but I think it would be a good idea to put a friendly You do! at the beginning -Dr.Bunshin 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't write Wikipedia... -- 86.142.251.120 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just did so You do! Borisshah 12:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Script Error

This is the best place I could find to put this If you go to create a new account and the user name you choose is already in use, it warns you just fine, however it doesn't clear to field, that is the unusable name is still present Salavge corvette control 2:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning vandalism

I notice there's no mention of vandalism and its reversion. Vandal fighters are a big part of Wikipedia. I propose the following paragraph be inserted somewhere appropriate within the text, or edit it as you see fit:

" Sometimes people deliberately vandalise these articles, but fortunately there are also those who choose to revert it, and usually within seconds of it happening. "

-- œ ^™ 17:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missed rewrite by IP

A couple of years ago an IP made a draft that went unnoticed, it is WP:Who writes Wikipedia/Rewrite, need to check it out or have it removed. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate claim

The following statement is inaccurate:

"Some articles that have been edited by many people are shown in the list of featured articles."

There is no correlation between the number of editors who have edited an article and whether or not it is featured:

An article can be featured without having many contributors: List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best other work is featured; it has been edited by 16 editors, 3 of whom are bots, and 1 of whom was an IP that appears to have been the logged-out address of one the lead writer.
An article can have many contributors without being featured: Lady Gaga is not featured; it has been edited by more than 1500 editors.

I suggest removing the nonsense phrase. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Gigs has taken your suggestion and re-written the sentence[1] to avoid the connection of quality with number of editors. Thanks for expressing your concerns and the problems with our phrasing so clearly. Cheers, —fudoreaper (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

everything about financing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstnational (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Inaccurate claim

Changed "You" (first word) to "The Wikipedia Editors" because the reader might not have ever edited Wikipedia before and, well, we wouldn't want to lie... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.225.187 (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osmocote

Osmocote originated at the Archer Daniels Midland Corporation in the mid-1960’s. It was initially intended for cereal crops but the technology was too expensive for widespread agricultural application. Just a few years earlier another unique form of fertilizer was developed at the Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Crown’s contribution to fertilizer technology was in the form of tablets that were designed to feed tree seedlings. Crown Zellerbach licensed the technology to Agriform Company. Both fertilizers struggled financially and their owners decided to sell their know-how. By pooling them together, they attracted a California venture capital company, Sutter Hill.

Sierra Chemical Company was formed with these two complimentary technologies in 1966 by Sutter Hill and was based at Union City, CA. Sierra eventually moved to Milpitas, CA, which happens to be in the heart of what’s now known as Silicon Valley. In 1971, a Canadian investor, Genstar, acquired Sutter Hill. As part of that arrangement, Sierra was hived off and placed with 50+ private investors who lived mainly in San Jose and Monterey, CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkzkzkzk (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why this page has this title?

why doesn't it say: who edits wikipedia? 188.2.166.230 (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUBJECT-NO RISING OF THE AGE OF AQUARIUS AT WIKIPEDIA

Dear Sir/Madam: I do not feel the Indian Volunteers are doing justice to the Wikipedias reputation. I have often sent them messages on their talk pages to no avail. All our politicians are corrupt there is little doubt about that If the likes of Rajiv Gandhi who was may his soul RIP are part of the premier family of the country can have a CONTROVERSY/BLACK MONEY ALLEGATIONS subheading and quite honestly the Indian Volunteers haven't even scratched the surface with either listed than why aren't all the others being exposed. A click on any of the following peoples names on Google or Indian Judicial Cases or media info. on corruption is enough to expose a can of worms. I was not aware the ethos of Wikipedia is to with-hold information which is common place nothing is set in stone so why not expose the lot of them and ellucidate the reader. After all how many encyclopedias withhold any information unless Wikipedia is changing its modus operandi which I might be the case because you don;t seem to have an EDIT page on Obama or Bushs' page no CONTROVERSIES isn't that strange? Mind you neither of these personalities interest me in the slightest its just an observation, I am concerned about Indian politicians only at present. I assure you another search engine will start someday and I am just guessing it will because the world seems to be operating faster than the speed of light and they will do what you should have not. Ty and hope the head office at Wikipedia keeps their heads held high for the good work they continue to do post your research on the following people Regards an ardent follower who is disillusioned at present.

Just a few wikipedia profiles which need to be research th[o]roughly: Sonia Gandhi not even an Indian by passport? Rahul Gandhi; Priyanka Gandhi; Manmohan Singh; Praful Patel; Naresh Goyal; Robert Vadra; Mayawati; HD Kumaraswamy; Jayalalitha; BS Yedurappa; Dharam Singh; Mayawati; Suresh Kalmadi; Dayanidhi Maran; Lalu Prasad Yadav; Madhu Koda; Mulayam Singh Yadav; Karunanidhi; Sharad Pawar; Jayalalithaa.

This is the mail i posted this evening and I am sure nothing will be done about it. Dear Author, You seem to have many loopholes in your story vis a vis H D Kumaraswamy. Please do not create an image of a Politician who is clean and kindly update the needful at the soonest.

CONTROVERSY: HDK and Wife in Illegal Mining Racket: In 2006, the Supreme Court refused a PIL against HDK regarding an enquiry into the amassment of wealth by the Gowda family. In 2011, the Courts were forced to open the trail and further enquires into the amassment of both weath and illegal quotas given to family menbers, friends and above all HDK himself

Karnataka High Court will tomorrow pronounce its orders on the anticipatory bail petitions of former Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy and his MLA-wife who apprehended arrest in two corruption cases filed against them in a special court here. Ref 1.; Ref 2.; Ref.3. HDK an Affair to remember with Actress Radhika

Other than the above listed details the following people also need to have a CONTROVERSY page on their wikipedia page: B. S. Yeddyurappa. (Hegde [?] submitted the report a couple of days before his retirement on August 3, and the report created a ripples across the nation, taking a toll on senior BJP leaders, including chief minister B S Yeddyurappa who had to step down owing to his indictment.)

Dharam Singh also in the mining scam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.96.185 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this section from the top of the page, given it a section title (via "=="s), done some cleanup (and, yes, augmentation) for readability/encouragement. Don't know if I can do more but I encourage more, certainly. My biggest hope would be that our initial contributor here would create a username and join the good fight; but I recognize/fear .... All told, the contribution's not as ill-suited for this page as I thought first when I was puzzled by it as the opener of the page, earlier today. ... Swliv (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

I've thought of a "Wiki product" (which feels particularly ... self-centered, careerist ... et c. ... after having been -- and, even, despite having allowed myself to be -- diverted for quite a bit of work on the above section, first) which maybe would have some broader interest; namely:

A download of all of an editor's edits.

Basically I'd envision it in the format of the e.g. "Difference between revisions" pages, one after the other. These pages can be found at the "prev" links on the lines of the edits on the View history pages of the articles the editor has edited. I haven't found a link to those pages from the User contribution page; though the contribution pages would make a good adjunct/add-on, to serve as a table of contents for the proposed download (with intra-linkage, if possible, of course). Creating such an agglomeration would seem technically fairly straightforward though it's way beyond my current capabilities. Burning such onto a CD or CDs or a harddrive would probably not be hugely space-consuming.

This idea does presume that at some point Wikipedia will not want to save/have readily accessible the whole edit history. Maybe I'm wrong to be concerned on that front. Then there's just the "hot little hands"/possession ... factor.

Having articulated it, I'm not at all sure of the demand, even from me, for it. But it's come to mind a number of times. ... It is a body of work; an opus; awkward and weird though it may seem to imagine.

There is this feeling that Wikipedia editors aren't so well understood "in the outside world", as here and elsewhere on that page, for example. (And, I guess, including our friend ... above.)

For consideration, respectfully, Swliv (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we probably will always keep complete histories, unless some technical matter causes us to lose them (which has happened in the early history of the wiki, but not lately). We need them in order to completely comply with our open source licenses. Losing attribution, while not a big violation, would make strict compliance with the licenses not possible. So I doubt such a thing would be taken lightly, and would be avoided at all costs. Gigs (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reassurance and insight. Back-up of course wasn't the primary driver -- more the gravy. ... But today's thoughts, in part prompted by your practical response, make my idea seem more a conceptual art piece; a one-off; a mind-piece. But that line in turn has brought this SDoyle illustration I encountered y'day to mind, nicely. And the idea here is by no means dead, for me. So on we go. Thanks again, and nice to make your acquaintance. Swliv (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ENGINE GAS.

Engine Gas es una empresa comercial de carater técnico creada en Julio 25 del 2012, Sus principales actividades están las conversiones de vehiculos a gas natural, conversiones Diésel a gas natural, conversiones Dedicadas a gas natural, Conversiones Duales (Gasolina-GNV, Acpm-GNV) Motores, sincronizacion en general, y todo tipo de actividades relacionadas con vehículos automotores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SERGIO LEONARDO LOZANO (talk • contribs) 20:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Este aceasta ceea ce noi numim în limba engleză "spam" - o promovare a unei companii private? Pare atât de. Ceea ce nu este de a fi extrem de negativă. Cineva ar putea ridica la detașarea (din drum), aici si a construit-o într-un articol.

Is this what we call in English "spam" -- a promotion of a private company? Seems so. Which is not to be utterly negative. Someone may pick up on the (out of the way) posting here and built it into an article. Here's the Google translation of what you posted:

Gas Engine is a trading company established in technical caráter July 25, 2012, Its main activities are the conversions of natural gas vehicles, diesel to natural gas conversion, Natural Gas conversions Dedicated, Dual Conversion (Petrol-CNG-NGV Acpm ) Engines, synchronization in general, and all kinds of activities related to motor vehicles.

Cheers. Aclamaciones & feliz año nuevo. Swliv (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contents here, and related points not true to my experience.

I am at a loss with regard to continuing with wikipedia. I am a mid-career professional, well-credentialed and expert in various subject areas. While some of my experiences have been positive (in narrow area of the hard sciences, where work is collegial), many experiences have been ridiculously negative. I have tried to have issues within article editor-groups remediated in various ways, but there has never been anything approaching a fair or professional adjudication of a disputed matter, certainly not in any timely way. These negative situations have taken over in shaping my impression of wikipedia, and lead me to say, I am at a loss.

The latter have occurred relatively regularly when I have ventured into any editing of the sort espoused by "Who writes Wikipedia" or related promotional pages: (i) when offering small corrective or updating comments to a variety of topics where, for reasons of being a well-traveled, widely read adult, I have come to be well-informed, or (ii) where for reasons of academic experience, I can see where a matter in an article is unclear or perhaps subtly biased in presentation.

In these kinds of edits, it has been my regular experience to find small groups of editors sitting in control of articles, reverting all changes, and replying dismissively, even rudely, to "outside" proposals for change. In these cases, reasons given to refuse change to articles, if substantive at all, generally would not pass muster in any classroom that I have had the privilege of training or teaching. In short, the reasons are on par with, "I do not see merit for a change, so it cannot be of merit." When asked on what authority deletions or reversions are made, a small group of editors appear, identified not by a general review system that would provide broad, unbiased comment, but rather, seemingly, by private communication between editors. After this, the change is denied because of lack of consensus. Group size for this consensus decision has at times has been as small as 2-3. If the process or outcome is challenged, an administrator—seemingly also a person well-known to the controlling group, certainly not an objective, disinterested party—is brought in to seal the "consensus" decision.

Hence, the leadership can say what it wishes, externally. But in my experience, wikipedia is not truly the fundamentally egalitarian organisation it attempts to portray itself as being. Rather, near to the grassroots it is a patchwork of editors with personal interests and agendas, many of whom band together as need be and to function in a control-conscious manner, and very politically. As critical, at that level and moving higher in the organization, there seem to be few paths for constructive oversight/review or for real systematic change. It is simply the case that all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others, and the farm is doing just fine as it is, thank you.

So while those in charge seem to have a view of the organization largely constructed by its more equal participants, I regret to say—and the reminder of this comes with the unfortunate passing of AS—that my experience, at its worst, at wikipedia, is much closer to those described here:

    http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Who_Writes_Wikipedia%3F

Certainly much closer to these, than it is to anything described by its founder, or by any official wikipedia page.

As an adult, professional expert, I simply haven't time or interest to play games. The individuals for each given article (for it is different for each) that know they have the advantage in the war of attrition, I declare, you have won. You understand you must be outmanoeuvred for any change to succeed, even if simple, broadly reasonable, even expert; and you know you will not be.

No system exists to review and overturn; there is no manner to formally, expediently challenge bias. So the battle is won. I will write elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I feel badly for your experience, this post seems reasoned. However, the two pages you link to are quite old, and making me wonder if this is an original post, or if some anonymous user is just copy-and-pasting someone else's critique of Wikipedia. Can you point out specific edits that were reverted without merit? Do you edit with a username, or anonymous all the time? Wikipedia is not perfect, but there are many of us who care, and are working on improvements, not deletion or status-quo. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with the [unsigned] post above (i mean the post, not Fudoreaper's reply). This page should contain/reference a documented study instead of wishful thinking. Just take it over from where Aaron left and make a scientific study (with disclaimers and all), or take the page down altogether if there's nobody that can do that. --Gyll (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gyll, are you saying that this current page should not exist; and if it were to exist, it should be in the form of a external research project, reflecting on dynamics of which editors carry the most weight in the editing process? I think this page is more simple than that. It's meant to answer the initial question a reader might have of who writes wikipedia. It's not trying to answer the questions of how, when, and by whom wikipedia is edited. That's a very large project, and not something that could be easily summarized, I would suggest. But you don't think this page as it currently stands is of any value? You think it's misleading? —fudoreaper (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fudoreaper: absolutely. The page is TOTALLY misleading in pretending it answers a deeply controversial question, while merely stating an unsubstantiated claim. Also, please accept my not entering a debate over this issue cause i really see nothing to debate here, i just wanted to add my comment/pov to the pile fwiw.--Gyll (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Gyll. Your opinion is different than mine, so thanks for expressing yours so that I can contemplate it. I'm not looking for an involved debate either, so I won't say much more about this. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with the above commentary. In particular, I note that Jim Wales founded Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia, to which anyone could add well-founded information, in order to further human knowledge. Yet though the website was founded on this simple principle, Wikipedia has fallen short of this objective. Though I am new to Wikipedia, I have expert knowledge on the legend of Robin Hood, amassed through studying a two-year postgraduate Masters research degree at the University of Leeds. Yet my attempts to provide information on this theme to Wikipedia have consistently been reedited by administrators, whom, I can only conclude, have a God complex. It has been my regular experience to find small groups of editors sitting in control of articles, reverting all changes, and replying dismissively, even rudely, to "outside" proposals for change. When asked on what authority deletions or reversions are made, a small group of editors appear, identified not by a general review system that would provide broad, unbiased comment, but rather, seemingly, by private communication between editors. After this, the change is denied because of a lack of consensus. Group size for this consensus decision has at times has been as small as 2-3. Wikipedia currently employs 1408 volunteer administrators, has 76, 000 active contributors and 21,821,300 global users. Yet, repeatedly, it is the same few administrators who feel the need to admonish me and alter my publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggasonswein (talk • contribs)

@Siggasonswein: Spamming irrelevant self-promotion like this throughout a swath of articles is going to get reverted, by admins and regular editors alike. Simple as that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page name is missing question mark

Is there any good reason why this page is not located at Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia?, with a question mark at the end? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? – The title is a question; it should have a question mark. The page starts with the text "Who writes Wikipedia?" in the center. Other help pages have question marks in their titles (e.g. Wikipedia:Why create an account?). I can't see any problems; double redirects will be fixed automatically, not that there's any issue with linking to a redirect. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Makes sense to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How Wikipedia gets new editors

Hi everyone, I'm wondering what the general consensus would be for adding a H2 header about the various ways Wikipedia gets people to become editors. Also, I'd be looking for any other ways other than: social media, anyone can edit etc.? Any help would be greatly appreciated! --DaveySeagull (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Diversity of article contributions and Social aspects

One should note also the issues related to diversity (in general, not only concerning culture or gender or origin). Just to provide some references (pure statistical analysis, how is the contribution distributed on different or same authors, authorship of articles)

This might be a general problem within open-data-society and sharing of both science knowledge and practical know-how (transformation processes are supported by a small minority), still the question might occur: Don't we want to aim at a more general contribution, how to gain new members (see post above), make people understand the importance of participation and responsibility. --Pascamel (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making Wikipedia the best it can be?

Given that Wikipedia wants people to "be bold and edit an existing article", or create a new one, then why are people sometimes blocked for attempting to do just that? 95.147.153.119 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]