This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Wikipedia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on September 10, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
The question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on itself has been raised many times before, and the answer is definitely yes.
Other talk page banners
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
...the single-sentence paragraphs, the lack of flow within paragraphs, the broken connections between paragraphs, the weak large-scale architecture in the article, the huge number of references for a paltry amount of data, the lack of distinction between important and trivial facts.
Record a new audio file once it reaches FA standard
Other:
Is it worth having an FAQ like other heavy traffic articles? E.g. "Why should Wikipedia have an article on itself?"
The "sub-articles" that were split off from this article are badly in need of attention, as are several other related articles. The following all need work:
History of Wikipedia — this one in particular is missing information and should be reorganized
Can we get the first three of these into a template somehow?
Many other language Wikipedia articles of questionable notability, particularly the smallest ones. A thorough going through is needed, with non-notable articles being AFD material.
Images: update graph in history section
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Expand : Add information about how well the open model is working. The number of articles protected and its evolution in time. Even better, share of reads (hits) according to page protection status.
Wikipedia Reference Desk was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Wikipedia. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report10 times. The weeks in which this happened:
The following sources referenced in the subsection on bias in Wikipedia are both completely innapropriate. I will be back to review if a rollback can be made, or if a deletion is better. please provide feedback before then.
Curently citation 192, is not a scholarly or professional source of any kind, nor is it an original work. It is a summary of proceedings which took place during a summit which included commercially and politically motivated speakers, covering a wide range of topics. the source referenced has been obscured making its primary text unverifiable, and, presents the misappropriation that it is actually a scientific publication buy obscurity behind a pay wall.
Currently citation 193, this is also not an original work, the cited source does not include any original research, and in fact cites the Wikipedia article it is used in as its source for the fact that it is used to cite in the Wikipedia article. this is a clear Wikipedia:Verifiability
ABOUTSELF violation. Azeranth (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Livingstone, Randall M. (November 23, 2010). "Let's Leave the Bias to the Mainstream Media: A Wikipedia Community Fighting for Information Neutrality". M/C Journal. 13 (6). doi:10.5204/mcj.315. ISSN 1441-2616. Archived from the original on November 21, 2022. Retrieved November 23, 2022.
^Hube, Christoph (April 3, 2017). "Bias in Wikipedia". Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion – WWW '17 Companion. Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. pp. 717–721. doi:10.1145/3041021.3053375. ISBN 978-1-4503-4914-7. S2CID 10472970.
They might be humorous, but they were actually filed. I say keep them, it's what the Old Afd-template is for. I don't know of any routine to exclude "funny" afd:s, my default assumption is that if it happened, it should be added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this discussion. I don't agree with your reasons for your delete:
"No other page does this," No other page is named "Wikipedia" either. Many pages have old-AfD listings, but I've never seen such a listing deleted. Perhaps deleting these are more common than I think.
"it seems pointless" If you mean the Fools part, please see HumourAs with any art form, the acceptance of a particular style or incidence of humour depends on sociological factors and varies from person to person. If you mean retaining a list of old AfD, then please start an RFC to remove Template:Old XfD multi from all pages.
"the "consensus" is wrong anyways." I am unclear on what this means. The word "consensus" appears in your proposed delete in the sentence The discussion was closed on 27 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. which appears to me to be true based on the records.
As I noted above, from my checks it seems the majority of April Fools AfDs are removed from their relevant talkpages. CMD (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the consensus of the AfD's is incorrect, I suppose you can attempt to appeal them with an RFC but I think that is very unlikely to be popular. I don't see how your opinion on the consensus of these AfD becomes an argument to delete the record. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
