Talk:Main Page/Archive 38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 45

== Anti-Religious Dogma == Hm. Well, if you take one look at the talk topics involving religion/creationism/evolution, it's obvious that Wikipedia users have taken to openly assaulting believers in religious ideals, notably those calling for equal representation on the evolution/creation debate.

This has to stop. As much as I'd like to have such equality (as the modern, scientific society is plagued by intolerance and prejudice towards religion, I realize that it's not attainable without great strife (there's enough as it is).

However, I think that there should be serious consideration towards fighting against slander such as that presented in these talk topics. It's clear that not only will Wikipedia users refuse to accomadate these opinions (which is actually a very understandable point), they will then take pains to demean the deeply-held faith of the person who brought them up. This needs to be prevented. This qualifies as discrimination and it's plain cruelty, whether concealed thinly by sarcasm or thrown out in the open.

This HAS TO stop. why? Keep the articles any way you want, but stop this flagrant personal assault on other users and readers.

Thank you for coming back User: As I said before please make specific comments of this sort on the article's discussion page. Otherwise this request is unactionable and we can't quickly correct these biases. If a specfic user is being rude mention it at WP:AN/I or WP:VP to bring this conflict to a larger audience. We want to create a welcoming enviroment for all users. In the future, this page is really meant for the discussion of the front page not wikipedia in general. Also, when you submit comments please add "~~~~" to sign your comments. This link is Broken 01:08, 2 Jun 2005
You seem to be of the peculiar belief that creationism is equal in merit to Evolution, and thus merits equal consideration and discussion. Rest assured, this is not the case. *ALL* the evidence - geological, paleontological, chemical, and physical - supports evolution, and *none* of it supports creationism. Creationism is a myth based on faith, and evolution is a scientific, disprovable theory based on observable fact. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of christian theology; we do not report facts as fundementalist christians interpret them. We *do* report on what the scientific community believes, and every respectable scientist believes in evolution. They may quibble about the details (puncuated equilibrium, peripatric speciation, et al) but all of them accept the general idea. Or, to put it another way, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (Theodosius Dobzhansky). →Raul654 03:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I, being a scientist, argue against evolution being a scientific fact. In fact, the results can only be interpreted within the frame of the original assumptions stated. For example, Carbon 12 dating is often used to date articles of antiquity assuming that its decay is constant over that particular span of time. What if the decays rates were not constant or even linear changing over time? Would that not invalidate what we feel are "factual" results. The truth of the matter is really that the results can be measured and then interpreted in the light of the assumptions used in the hypothesis. If the assumption is incorrect, the measured result may be the same, but the interpretation of what that measured result means can be completely different. On another point, evolution as you define it has yet to really expain the mechanism by which singulary important biological structures such as the human eye have come into being. rarr;rsteven

(Carbon-12, as it has been observed thousands of times in labs, appears to decay at a steady rate. To call evolution into question by saying that it might not (even though overwhelming evidence suggests it does) is illogical. The argument is also unnecessary, as this isn't a debate over evolution as a fact, but over creationism vs. evolution in comparison. Evolution is a credible, if not definite, hypothesis. Creationism is hogwash, repeatedly refuted in scientific tests. )

As noted in the article Intelligent Design there is “some complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the scientific method (for instance, abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-living matter, is only partially understood by science).” If real science only partially understands a subject such as the origins of life shouldn’t comments about that subject acknowledge that? Just as the article goes on to note “empirical scientists would simply say ‘we don't know’ ... and list what is known.” Also, when someone makes all-encompassing statements (*all* or *none*) about a subject that is partially understood watch out for statements of religious faith. When scientists who dare to challenge the current dogma are implied to be unworthy of respect watch out for religious intolerance. “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”--Chandra Wickramasinghe. Evolutionary dogma is not anti-religious it is simply another leap of faith. Like Buddhism it does not require belief in a personal god but it smacks of religious extremism. Let’s stick to what science has actually proven and admit what we have yet to learn. -- 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What your last sentence is describing is a mythical structure known to creationists as the 'irreducably complex' organ -- a body part that is so mechanically/electrically/chemically complicated that it could not have evolved in stages, and thus would have had to be done by a single step mutation. The human eye is the organ most commonly cited that fits this description. Unfortuntaey for creationists, this little myth was thoroughly debunked last October, when researchers at the European Molecular Biology Labratory actually found a precursor to the human eye - a collection of light-senstivie cells with rods and cones - in Platynereis dumerilii [1], thus laying to rest yet another creationist argument. →Raul654 20:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it is more accurate is irrelevant. We must represent all reasonable views to be NPOV and people shouldn't assault or insult people of faith. This link is Broken 04:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Except that what our anonymous contributor friend here calls insults are nothing more than simple criticisms of creationism as the pseudoscientific dogma that it is. Anything less than full equal merit with evolution is "Evolutionary chauvinism". Now don't get me wrong, I'm fine with having an article on creationism, provided it "tells it like it is" -- that is, is says that Creationism is a religious doctrine, and not a real, viable, or scientific explination for how the world came to exist. And, for the record, a person who comes to the talk page(s) and demands that we rewrite our articles to conform to his particular extremist-POV is obviously flamebaiting. And, to the credit of the people writing here, I don't really see anything on this page that could be construed as a personal attack. Criticisms of someone's belief is not an attack against the person. →Raul654 05:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Being factually accurate overrules NPOV. Certainly, it's bad to use either as a voicebox to mouth off about one side or another. But the fact of the matter is that creationism is simply not credible in the scientific community.--Fangz 11:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is important to remember always that being NPOV is not the same thing as including every possible POV on an equal-merit basis. Does Earth give equal coverage to flat-earth views? Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
What Raul said. --mav 01:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is as ridiculous as the Flat Earth Society (
I'm not so sure about that; at least creationism is supported by some (though a small minority) of scientists, and that website appears to be a forum for joking around more than anything. Ask an intelligent design proponent for an explanation, and you'll get one that is logical (though based on different premises); I'm looking around and I don't see a logical defense of flat earth beliefs on the above website. --Spangineer (háblame) 20:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is a theory. A set of facts may be presented to support a particular assumption/theory, but that does not necessarily move the theory to fact, especially if the item in question can not be replicated. This is he root of your biasness.

If you subscribe to positivism, as that comment suggests, then you surely accept that all facts are simply well-accepted theories, and there's nothing to stop an exception appearing and forcing them to be edited. This makes evolution no different from the belief that objects fall downwards and that the sun is up during the day. It's a theory, but it's the best theory. Sockatume 16:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not to be pandantic, but the sun being up during the day is a fact. However, that the sun comes up everyday, on the other hand, is a theory. Theorys predict, facts just ARE. That said, I see what you're saying, and generly agree. I'm too lazy to sign in, so just look for user True Vox

I don't believe in god but I'm not against religion either. I think religion has its value when it is used to promote goodness, but not when people become too fanatical about it. Now that genetic engineering is becoming a reality, I wonder when religion will be replaced by something else. As in evolution, everything evolves over time in order to survive and be relevant, I think the same thing may happen to religion too. When the tools become available to create or to customize new life or to extend life, what sort of morals will we have? Will religion become obsolete and get in the way of humankind's desires? Or will we become even more religious? [lackofsignature]

Greet to everyone, and sorry form my bare English. I read the debate over, and i would express my humble opinion. I think that the scientific evidence must prevail over religious or other thoughts, but we also must report the other points of wiev (with proper explanations). In an encyclopedia we should report any true information, but also the false information if they have a storically or social importance (e.g an urban legend or a famous fake). But we must define that type of information as without foundation. Olpus

Evolution and Judeo-Christian beliefs cannot fit together. One must cut out chunks of scripture and redefine the nature of God and sin to effectively match the two. With that, one must also stop believing in the inerrancy of scripture and subject it to the pressures of cultural change. So in the end, one only has but evolution and remnants of a few miraculous stories. Christians believe because of faith, not science. It is foolish to try to undermine their beliefs with science. Historically, persecution and discrimination have only served to make Christians stronger. Also historically speaking, Judeo-Christian beliefs always out-live the pressures of secularism and paganism. Hence the phrase coined by Nero himself, "Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat." And finally, in looking at the nature of religion, I quote C.S. Lewis from The Weight of Glory, "No Christian and, indeed, no historian could accept the epigram which defines religion as 'what a man does with his solitude.'" So, good luck undermining over 6 thousand years of recorded history with a hundred or so years of science. Marxism is your only hope. Credo

6000 years of 'history', where much of it is recorded in an apparently infallible book thats been revised more times that the average Wikipedia Featured Article.
I'm using a computer here that was developed in under 50 years of science. Whereas for most of the '6000 years' creationists keep pushing, most of the world lived in mud huts, were in the dark all night and running away scared from large animals..... I know which one I want to support anyway.
You need to get out more. Most of the world still lives in mud huts, unless they are crammed into slums that make mud huts look inviting. If you think that there is universal access to electrical utilites you need to come back to this planet. On the other hand the implication that Jews were poor, backwards people due to their cultural writings is offensive.
There is no proof to back up creationism other than one heavily edited book, and a lot of lies. There is plenty of proof to back up evolution. And thats the way its going to stay. --Kiand 22:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I cannot believe that the debate between creationism and evolution still continues. I am very much a Christian but I also respect science; I belive that science is our method of investigating god's handiwork. The thing you have to realize about creationism is that the bible is not meant to be taken literally. I mean, there are many scriptures that say people would rise up in to heaven, but we know that in fact, there is no "up" and "down". To go up would be to go into space. It would say that one man's heaven could be another man's hell quite literally. The bible was translated so that common people could understand it and apply it to their lives. Our society is far more educated than the commoners of that time and we should be able to look for the metaphors in the bible, rather than cling to what we know for certain to be a fable.
Even if you do want to hold the whole thing to nearly perfect interpretation, the bible says that one day to god is a thousand man years. We have evidence of rapid-evolution that shows there is a chance man really did evolve from a significantly lower species than himself very quickly. That species could easy have come from the mud. On top of that, we know cells can go through a process of mitosis, which would allow a metaphor to show that along the way god really did make eve out of Adam. It is all in how you look at things. The bible most likely isn't a perfect illustration of what happened, if god is omniscient, think of it as the first time you taught math to a child. You can't instantly go into multi-variable calculus. It just wouldn't make sense. You tell the child what they can comprehend until they are ready to handle the next stage.
All in all, whether you believe in creationism or evolution, they aren't really all that conflicting. Evolution isn't a replacement for creationism, its our insight into how amazingly well planned out god made everything. It took time and skill beyond our wildest dreams. Personally, I think the literal view of creationism undercuts god, dipicting him as a kid playing with play dough while evolution shows his masterful sculpting of life.--RDev 00:21, 13 Jun 2005 (MST)

How about a "most viewed" box on the Main Page?

How about a "most viewed" box on the Main Page?

  • Nah, these primadonnas already get too much attention. How about a least-viewed; in fact, how about a never-viewed? :)--Pharos 07:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting point. — mark 07:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • "never viewed" would be an excellent feature. It's sometimes sad (or absurd) to see how the prominent articles are fought over, down to punctuation and layout, while the minor articles, just a single click away, waste away without attention in a miserably dilapidated state... dab () 08:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I support the "never viewed" idea! --Yannick 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should mention before this gets too much commentary that this idea is not now (and probably will never be) technically feasable. The monthy statistics compilation was discontinued because it is so server intensive that it was causing a noticble lag when it was running (and this was back in October when our traffic was half or a third of what it is now). →Raul654 08:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I also feel compelled to clarify that a list of most-viewed pages would most likely be full of pages like penis and masturbation. Even if we were to introduce a feature like this, it would be more significant showing "bullet performers" whereby an article suddenly gets a lot more page views. - Mark 08:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I'd like is for each page to display an Edits per View ratio. The theory being that the more often a page is viewed without someone deciding to edit it, the more accurate it probably is. Seabhcán 13:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
probably views per edit would be more appropriate - but of course - it's basically the same - just the other way round... - Blueshade 14:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Really? I think high edits-per-view is more likely to mean a page is the site of major edit wars, because the really popular pages (penis, George W. Bush) will have large numbers of both editors and viewers. Nickptar 23:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thats true, Edit-war pages are a special case. But even here, the ratio would show high edits per view (or low views per edit, if you prefer) and the ratio would show these pages to be unreliable. Pages with a very high number of views for each edit must be more reliable. The measure would also deal well with pages that are on off beat topics and recieve low traffic. Such pages have both low views and low edits, so the edits/views ratio would still give a rough indication of reliability. It shouldn't put much strain on the servers (speaking as a programmer who hasn't looked at the wikimedia code) each page could be given a simple view counter (this info is probably available as the servers must render wiki-code to html each time a page is requested). The number of edits is readily available. The ratio could be calculated based on "number of edits over the last 20 views/20). It would be a bit like Google's pagerank. Seabhcán 11:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Problem: the servers don't render HTML every time a page is viewed; something like 90% of hits are served by a Squid HTTP proxy. Though it would probably be trivial to patch this to count views. Nickptar 13:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thamks a lot for the feedback guys. I posted this same question a few months ago and never got a response. And you certainly made valid points.

"The Free Encyclopedia" is inaccurate and undersells Wikipedia

I think it should be changed to something like "The Free Reference Library". Wikipedia has sections that parallel pretty much all the reference books on my shelves except the atlases. By the end of the decade it is likely to have a billion words or more, and the connection to the idea of a mere encyclopedia will be remote. It is much more than that. Osomec 14:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that will seem a little grandiose if it makes people think of the British Library or their local equivalent, which isn't what I meant. How about "The Free Home Reference Library"? Though that has the drawback that Wikipedia isn't just for home use. Osomec 14:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One step at a time, eh? The encylopedia wording represents the aims of the current project.--Fangz 18:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Only those of academic snobs who are uneasy about it expanding beyond subjects like physics and philosophy. But it has already expanded beyond those academic aims on a massive scale. Osomec 20:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From Encyclopedia: "An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written compendium of knowledge."
    • I don't see anything wrong with calling this project an encyclopedia. It represents our aims. Really, what makes an encyclopedia different from a reference library? Basically it all boils down to the same thing. So why bother changing something that's working? Mgm|(talk) 20:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Osomec - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a general knowledge base, a periodical, a geneiological listing, a travel guide, or a compendium of original research. You would expect to find any and all of these in a library, and Wikipedia should not contain any of it. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a library. →Raul654 20:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not free. Not anywhere near being free. JarlaxleArtemis 00:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Vandalism anniversary

June 2, 455 anniversary date is contradictory on today's main page, as the article vandalism states the term vandalism "refers to the Germanic Vandals, who since the 17th century were incorrectly thought to have ruthlessly sacked the city of Rome in 455."

CobaltBlueTony 21:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nandi link in Did you know?

...that the Terik language of Kenya is classified as endangered by UNESCO because the Terik people have increasingly become assimilated to the Nandi people in recent decades?

The Nandi should point to Nandi_(ethnic_group) and not to the latter, which is a disambig page. pamri 05:26, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Fixed it. Nandi_(ethnic_group) is a redirect, so I linked it to Nandi people instead. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Spelling Bee?

I've seen much more important issues get knocked back for inclusion in ITN, so what makes this event "relevant/important international news?" -

Luckily it was taken off. - Quirk 08:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right. I'd rather see Miss Universe up there on ITN ..... And she is prettier. :-) -- 13:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some c**t has put it back. How is this remotely relevant to anything? And what is an "eighth-grader"?

someone in eighth grade? This link is Broken

So i guessed, but what does that mean? And why is this making the international headlines (on wikipedia only, remember)

Clumsy 'Featured Article' opening paragraphs

The first thing I read when I visit Wikipedia is the lead paragraph of the featured article. Sometimes, although the article itself is fine, the lead paragraph is clumsily-written; most often, it starts up with a long, confusing sentence which tries to encapsulate the subject's attributes as quickly as possible. I usually find that the article has been speedily changed by other, quicker Wikipedia editors. However, the text on the main page remains as it was, a blot.

The example right now is Steve Dalkowski, a baseball bowler. The opening paragraph on the front page reads "Steve Dalkowski is a former minor league left-handed baseball pitcher, sometimes called the fastest pitcher in baseball history – earning him the nickname "White Lightning"". This is a clumsy sentence. "A former minor league left-handed baseball pitcher" is unwieldy, and the second half of the phrase doesn't match the fact of him earning his nickname with an action he performed.

Is it a cache issue, does it take time to filter through - presumably to stop vandalism appearing on the main page - or do administrators have to manually update the text, assuming they can? Could people double-check the opening paragraphs of things they feature? Apart from this issue, please carry on, you're doing a good job - and you, yes you, you're beautiful.-Ashley Pomeroy 16:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that the admins have to manaully edit it. This is because of that the main page suffered heavily from vandalism before it was protected. Jeltz talk 16:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, the actual text is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2005 and is protected from editing. This link is Broken 16:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • In thie case, if you look at the page history, it's clearly a case of too many chefs spoiling the broth. I did a quick rewrite as soon as I saw this comment here and the writeup seems good now. →Raul654 16:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is often a victim of the "too many cooks" phenomenon. Everyone wants to get their favourite fact into the opening paragraph, or preferably the opening sentence, resulting in the mess you see at the top of so many articles. If you have a good idea how to improve matters, we'd love to hear your suggestion. Gdr 11:13, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Brazilian Clave'

The statement concerning Brazilian Clave' is not correct. In the composition of Samba enredo (carnival Samba) The direction of the Brazilian Clave' is the key to what is played by the rest of the bataria and on the melody of the song. Just like in Afro-Cuban music the Brazilian clave must be respected. Whoever wrote this article has not been to Brasil and is guessing at their assertion. In Brasil they don't refer the this pattern as the Clave' I've often heard it referred to as the Sincopia. Thank you Kurt Rasmussen

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

A spelling bee, a global event?

Hum, excuseme, but is the spelling bee contest important enough for the news on the main page?

Didn't you hear? Wikipedia is for USA parochial bullshit! Word of your "important global events" has not reached their shores.

May someone remove that story? :-) (left by User:Equinoxe

Look at the edit summary: [2]. This admin openly admits he was trolling. Unfortunately when someone responsible cleared up his little joke someone else added it back in again. (

He was joking. It was added because people have been complaining that ITN hasn't been updated enough. Many of the candidates on the candidates page are invalid so us admins don't have as many choices as we would like. Other suggestions are put on the wrong page (like the ones on the bottom of this page) and don't get used. It's hard to be really dynamic without adding less important content. This link is Broken 19:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Massacre photo

The Serbeninca Massacre Photo has a mouseover the EU Flag.

ALT attribute for Srebrenica Massacre image incorrect

Unless somebody is making a dig about the pre-NATO European peacekeeping effort in the Balkans, I'm pretty sure the image of thousands of corpses should not be labeled "Flag of the European Union".

Fixed but please discuss the template on its talk page. This link is Broken 20:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian Wikipedia: 10,000 articles reached, requested move

Its link should be moved to the third from the second group of "Wikipedia in other languages". Adam78 00:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to be picky but isn't it actually at 9967? This link is Broken 00:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Somehow the Main Page is sometimes late as compared to the Recent changes. I also noticed the difference last night when I wrote this suggestion. But now the Main Page seems to be up to date, too. Adam78 10:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hun Wikipedia

No, it's actually 10042 now. -- 07:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)==Hungarian wiki==

now 10000 articles

Srebrenica Massacre

Srebrenica Massacre has been transferred to Srebrenica massacre. In the news should be corrected. --Eleassar777Slovenia flag 300.png my talk 21:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, in the future make these requests at Template talk:In the news. This link is Broken 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Typo on Windows XP

It reads "It also contains work-arounds for to avoid the "DLL hell" that plagued older consumer versions of Windows, which stemmed from inefficient software management."

which should read "It also contains work-arounds to avoid the "DLL hell" that plagued older consumer versions of Windows, which stemmed from inefficient software management."

There's an un-needed for in there.

Fixed, thanks. --cesarb 00:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why Windows XP?

I don't understand why this is a featured article.

To be quite blunt, it's a bit like a cold call.

I know it's not, but today's featured article has the appearance of an advertisement for an MS product on Wikipedia's Front Page. -- 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feature articles for the Main Page are proposed and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. If you think articles about commercial products are inappropriate for the Main Page, you need to make your case there. Gdr 11:13, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with these observations advertising Windows XP hardly seems appropriate. Steven Zenith 23:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

So edit the article to make it sound less like advertising. This is a wiki, you know. — Dan | Talk 23:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Not everyone knows enough about the topic to re-write the article, y'know ? -- 14:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kernel link

The link to kernel in the featured article box needs to be piped. it currently goes to a disambig page. Bonus Onus 03:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on wikibooks

hey i know this is for wikipedia but if anyone is online with admin priveliges for Wikibooks someone has put up obscene pics all over the front page.

Time to cut {{newpagelinksmain}}?

At the bottom of the Main Page is the template {{newpagelinksmain}}, which expands to

All New articles: 5 10 15 20 25 30 | Orphans: 5 | Categories: 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Does the utility of this section really justify its inclusion on the Main Page? I can't see the casual visitor being interested in any of these links. So I propose that we cut this template and make the Main Page a little shorter and tidier. Gdr 11:18, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Agreed, it belongs on the community portal. --W(t) 11:19, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
I seem to rememver having heard that its purpose was to improve Wikipedia's Google ranking, but I don't know anything about how that might work. I'll inquire among the developers whether it's still necessary. — Dan | Talk 14:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
It's there so that google picks up on new pages more quickly. Google tends to spider our main page a lot, but not necessarily deeper links that would lead it to new pages. That's why we link to them from the main page. →Raul654 14:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

That explains the "New encyclopedia articles" links. What about the other links? Gdr 16:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

The same logic applies to "orphaned" articles (articles which are not linked to by any other article). Let's say you right an article on some obscure topic which is not linked to from any article. The Google spider would not normally pick it up, so google would not notice. However, linking to it from the main page ensures that, even if no article on wikipedia links to it, someone searching google could still find it. →Raul654 16:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Also, isn't there some way we could hide the links to the new pages while still having them spidered? I know google generally tries to ignore hidden text and links, but perhaps either something with a link rel in the header or with a display: none would be doable? --W(t) 16:36, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

The same logic does not apply to orphaned articles. The point of putting links on the Main Page is so that the Google spider picks them up more quickly. I see why this applied to new pages. But I don't see why it applied to orphan pages. Yes, we want Google to pick them up. But for that any old link will do. So why is it necessary for Google to pick up orphaned articles more often, or sooner than, ordinary articles? Gdr 17:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Because if they weren't linked from our main page, google would never find any of our orphaned articles at all. It's not so much of a get-them-on-google-faster thing as it is a if-we-don't-put-them-here-they-will-never-be-seen thing. →Raul654 17:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't Google find them if they were linked from some other page? Gdr 18:32, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

"Orphaned" means they aren't linked from some other page. -- Cyrius| 19:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain this as simply as I can. We want orphaned pages to be spidered by Google. So a set of special reports are made linking to them, and then these reports are linked from elsewhere in the encyclopedia. My point is that there is no need for the reports to be linked from the Main Page. As long as the reports are linked from somewhere (accessible via some chain of links from the Main Page) then Google will find them. So why does that somewhere have to be the Main Page? Gdr 19:56, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Because Google spiders the Main Page a lot more often than any other page. — Dan | Talk 20:01, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

So why do we want Google to spider the orphaned articles more often than other articles? What makes the orphaned articles so deserving? Gdr 20:25, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Google bombing. Ambush Commander 20:34, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Explain. Gdr 21:44, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

It's all been explained above. Google detects pages based on what links to them. We use the links template to encourage Google to give orphaned pages exposure equal to that of other, interlinked articles. Non-orphaned articles don't need the boost in exposure for the very reason that they aren't orphaned. (I get the feeling this conversation is going in circles.) — Dan | Talk 21:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have that feeling too. I understand all your points and have never doubted them. I am merely asking, why do the links to the lists of orphaned pages have to be on the Main Page? Why not on some other page? (I keep asking this question and you keep answering different ones! How can I make myself clear?) Gdr 22:29, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

[3]Dan | Talk 03:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[4] Gdr 07:51, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I give up. Try as I might, you seem determined not to be satisfied. — Dan | Talk 18:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

But you never answered my question! What did you expect? All you had to say was "PageRank" and I would have understood. Gdr 22:46, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

It is not just spidering more often that matters, but ranking matters too. Unless the orphaned articles' PageRank is boosted "artificially" this way, they are less likely to be noticed, edited and linked. This problem is absent in other articles. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 08:37, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Aha! A comprehensible answer at last. Thank you. Gdr 22:46, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Links to international Wikipedias

I miss links to all the international Wikipedias on the Mainpage. All over the world it is common use to give a hint to Wikipedias worldwide in a list below toolbox. On the english site it's missing. What's the reason? Greetings and best wishes Paul 17:49, Jun 5, 2005 (CET)

There is a great big section on the main page with links to all Wikipedias with over 1000 articles. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"In the news" allegations of Qur'an desecration redirects

Someone please fix the link (well, it's not broken, but direct links rather than redirects are definitely preferred). This is our front page.

The front page, as it is, seems to accept the Pentagon's contention ("confirms") that Qur'ans were "accidentally" mistreated fairly uncritically. Saying that it "claims" such might be better. When was the last time you accidentally urinated on a piece of scripture? — Vivacissamamente 08:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great Lakes of Michigan

Does anyone know the name of the first ship to have sunk in the Great Lakes of Michigan? And the captians name?


Main page ( has a rather disturbing photo if you scroll down. Got quite a nasty shock when I saw it, it should be protected from future such vandalism, and that should be corrected ASAP, as it gives a bad image of the site

"Should wikipedia have exteranl links to photos" ?

In an article about Wikipedia:Gaza Strip several editors object having any links to external photos. The photos in question

Show visually the life in Gaza, both for the Palestinians and for the Israeli settlers who are facing an evacuation as part of Israel pullout plan from Gaza.

So the question is:

Should links to external photo sites be allowed from Wikipedia or the only use of photos on Wikipedia should be for photos that are loaded into Wikipedia. Maybe all external links should be disallowed? Not just photos .

What do you think ?

The main issue here (though there are several) is that the anonymous editor keeps linking to his own photo sites; other editors view this as self-promotion. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This isn't the place for policy discussions. -- Cyrius| 19:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Sandbox problem

Dear admins! I tried accessing the Wikipedia Sandbox, but I was redirected to the Naruto characters article. Is it me or is it vandalism? KNewman 12:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not you, someone was testing redirects (which they shouldn't do in the sandbox). Fixed. (For future reference, this kind of stuff goes on Wikipedia:Help desk). --W(t) 12:35, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it vandalism, it could just be improper testing of redirects done in good faith. Jeltz talk 13:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category Nonsense

Who came up with the "culture, geography, mathematics, etc" link nonsense at the top? How about an actual directory like Yahoo! ? The current links are probably one user's preferred subcategories. If you like arbitrary, please provide a link to "denture cream" as well.

László Sólyom

He won by 185-182 in the third round of the election, and he’s hardly an “opposition leader” (with my emphasis on leader). -- Ralesk 00:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)




I think its something to do with Human Papilloma Virus, which is a sexually transmitted disease. It has few symptoms, but can eventually lead to cell mutation, and therefore cancer, especially of the cervix. Who ever it is might be talking about the human race supposedly being infected 2000 years ago plus and therefore being genetically altered, perhaps sparking off cancer in the human race??? Well, thats all I can offer. Dwilke

awesome site

THIS SITE IS AMAZING... best website i have come across in a very long time thank u wikipedia... (i sound like an ad for wikipedia)

You're welcome
-- The management.

"The Management"

That's the problem with Wikipedia...people suffering from Forum Moderator Syndrome.

I don't see any delusions of power in that response. And really, in a perfect egalitarian Wikipedia, isn't everyone who takes part entitled to consider themselves part of The Management? -- Cyrius| 10:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, not really. That's the role of the totalitarian administrators. JarlaxleArtemis 00:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Presumably the "management" comment was a joke. Let's not get too caught up in victimhood to appreciate humor. — Dan | Talk 02:53, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Speaking as the one who wrote that -- Yes, it was meant a joke, and (about the victimhood) I wholeheartedly concur. And, to be pedantic, Cyrius is correct in that we are all managers. Jarlaxle, stop making trouble. →Raul654 07:31, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

New York Times Investigation

NE1 have more info on ghost-writing investigation @ NYT? Maureen Dowd involved somehow.

UPDATE: Carl Hulse identified as NYT bureau reporter as ghost-writer for several of MD's columns.

NE1 else know of this?


Nicolò da Conti

I saw an article in the new featured list a couple of days ago about a medieval Italian who converted to Islam and travelled widely. It showed a picture of a French translation of one of his books. I tried to go back to it yesterday searching on the name nicolò da conti. I completely failed to find anything. Did I spell the name wrong? Am I using the search facility incorrectly? Or am I just going crazy and imagining articles that don't exist?

Niccolò Da Conti, recovered from Template talk:Did you know. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have pity upon the poor orphans

Only the first two links work in the Encyclopedia orphans section at the foot of the page giving 1000 orphans up to Ca.

All New articles: 5 10 15 20 25 30 | Orphans: 5 | Categories: 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Grammar error

I think that there's a goof in grammar in the DYK section: DYK that 1980s horror movie actress Ellie Cornell nearly broke out of her typecasting by appearing the 1992 film A League of Their Own, but had to drop out because she became pregnant?

It should be: DYK that 1980s horror movie actress Ellie Cornell nearly broke out of her typecasting by appearing in the 1992 film A League of Their Own, but had to drop out because she became pregnant? Dralwik 21:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the "pregnant" link should be pregnancy.

A redirect

In the anniversaries section, the 2004 event is about a long-distance runner, with "long-distance" linking to "Athletics long distances", which redirects to Long-distance track event. Dralwik 21:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NYT Update

Rumors of investigation at New York Times regarding Carl Hulse of the DC bureau ghost-writing political columns for Maureen Dowd. Haven't seen documentation yet. Anyone know the inside information?

Retrieved from ""

Nonsense on this talk page

Can we get rid of some of this B.S. on this page? Like the above entry and the CELL LINES one? Perhaps we ought also to delete most of the text on the ones asking for help and redirect them to the Reference Desk? Something to the effect of...

Please direct your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk

Cigarette 13:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, we'll just appoint you to determine what is B.S. and what is not. I love censorship!

Everything is undoable here. If someone really values nonsense, they'll undelete it. Nickptar 20:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like nonsense.

If nonsense is preferred, don't come to Wikipedia. You'll feel more at home at Wikia's Uncyclopedia. -- 18:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reference Desk on the Front Page

Furthermore, considering how much direction we do on THIS page to the Reference Desk, it might be a really good idea to put a link to the Wikipedia:Reference desk on the Front Page or perhaps in the sidebar. Cigarette 13:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Go for it. ... Actually, it's up there already in the header on THIS talk page. People just don't see it ..... I've just bolded it. -- 16:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
you can bold it, make it larger, make it blink and still people will ask here, some people are just too lazy to read anything and will just go in and post. Boneyard 18:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ethiopia poll violence

What is this ruling party/opposition party nonsense. If this were the United States or Great Britain would anyone say opposition party instead of Democrats or Conservatives. Has anyone called New Labour the ruling party in place of its name in an encyclopedia?

Main issue is sheer wordiness in limited space. Look at the names of parties that are being linked to and think of how many extra lines that adds. I would be delighted with one word party names. Also, read the bolded article and see why "ruling party" is not entirely inappropriate. And please sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~). Cheers, BanyanTree 23:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wettest Place ON EARTH?!?!

Err, is Cherrapunji in India really the "wettest place on earth"? Is it even wetter than, say, the Atlantic Ocean? 'Cause that is what is suggested in the DYK section...

Exactly why it qualifies as "wettest" is elaborated on in the article. -- Cyrius| 10:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's just beautiful, but IT IS NOT THE WETTEST PLACE ON EARTH! It set a world record for the most rain in a month. It set a world record for the most rain in a year (because of that month). But it is not "...the wettest place on earth."

Try, it is "the place with the record for the most amount of rain in one year/month." Accuracy, people. Please!

yourman, 03:56, 11 Jun 2005 (Korean Time)

In fact, you may call as wettest place (on land) since records have been kept for that region (Assam), cumulative rainfall is nearly four times, and occassionally 6 to 10times average rainfall for the subcontinent. Thus, annual rainfall between 160 to 400 inches makes it the wettest region on annual basis. Now, it may be not the wettest location on the Earth (including land mass), but it preserve the meaning of place (land mass) being wettest. It has approx. twice rainfall of Amazonian forests and Central African forest, owing to winter and monsoon rainfalls.

It seemed to me much snappier and more interesting to write "Cherrapunji is the wettest place on earth" than something like "Cherrapunji holds the records for the greatest measured rainfall over the periods of (a) one month and (b) one calendar year". (Pedants can always find some imprecision to complain about, so my policy is not to pander to them.) Gdr 13:14, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Eduardo Rodriguez

Eduardo Rodriguez is the new president of Bolivia, the #1 story of google news. Where is his wiki article? Sam Spade 07:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I created an insanely crappy sub-stub, please help make it main page worthy ASAP. Sam Spade 07:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Is it ok for people to be wed at a young age?

That would depend largely on the culture and country in which the couple lives. Our article on marriage covers cultural norms fairly thoroughly, while marriageable age lists the legal minimum age for many countries. Incidentally, future questions of this nature should be directed to Wikipedia:Reference desk. — Dan | Talk 18:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Freedom here is limited

You aren't allowed to write articles about the Church of Reality because they will be removed. It appears that the dominionists dominate this site. The claim on the main page that this is an open site for information isn't true when it comes to reality based religion. --Marcperkel 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Church of Reality was deleted because of a VfD consensus. --cesarb 18:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Consensus based censorship is still censorship. The fact that is was removed speaks for itself. --Marcperkel 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an internet web host. We delete material like yours that does not futher our goal of being an encyclopedia. If that's censorship, so be it. →Raul654 21:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

how can one distinguish between what belongs to encyclopedic knowledge and what not? I'd like to have that link here - any link - we do not know, whether it will be important some day ... I'm new here, hope that's ok. gerda_badischl

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --cesarb 13:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian Wikipedia should be moved to the 1000+ section

The Macedonian Wikipedia currently has 1280 articles and should be introduced to the 1000+ section. Thanks! -- Ivica83 21:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

MTR Feature

Should the reference be the "then colony" or "former colony"? Cuz HK was a colony back then, not anymore :-) --Madchester 02:17, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

sysop help needed

Quite breaking news needs to be added to the news section:

"The world's richest nations, the G8 nations, have agreed on a plan for debt relief for poor African countries."

Wikipedia is not a news service. Please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page for explanation. If the relevant wikipages are not updated yet, please post at Current events, instead of "In the news" on the Main Page. After the relevant wikipages are sufficiently updated, please then post a suggested headline on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- 18:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You want to go to Wikinews. Dan100 21:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Requested images

Please insert images in the article if you have them because I don't know how to insert them.

Kind of images are a Japanese rock singer Kyosuke Himuro, a soul music singer Ken Hirai, a famous economist Kazuhide Uekusa.

If their images are vivid and clear, it's better. (Sorry, I can't write English well because I'm Japanese) 13:14 Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Uploading images. BTW, your English is fine. Cheers ! :-) -- 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you Wikipedia. This is one of the best things to ever happen to me. An infinite amount of knowledge all integrated into one website. I love this thing! You need to know about something? Just type it in. You need to know about something relating to it just click on one of the links in it's explanation. I could go on for hours on this thing just learning!! I love it! Thanks alot!

Too much American Civil War?

Is it just me or has there been a lot of American Civil War stuff on the "on this day" bit of the site over the last few weeks? This is a bit POV in favour of the US. --Batmanand 18:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm more annoyed by the posting of anniversaries of the founding of big US corporations. US-centrism ? Free advertising on the Front Page of Wikipedia ? -- 13:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recommended changes

I have made several comments here in the past about changes I recommend to the front page. Until the protocols change (see my recommendation on my user page) the main page should IMHO change the banner proclaim to read:

The free-content Encyclopedia anyone can contribute to

instead of

The Encyclopedia anyone can edit

There also needs to be a clear public warning or clear directions on how to read or use the Encyclopedia - one that clearly states that articles can claim no authority. The main page should clearly state:

Contributions to Wikipedia are not authoritative and may represent the bias and ignorance of the author. The presence of a subject in Wikipedia may not present a balanced view of the field to which the subject pertains. The presence of little known historical or contemporary figures in Wikipedia does not signify that their contribution or their field has merit.

This can then say something constructive about the Wikipedia process and how to best read Wikipedia - but this should be balanced and not self-aggrandising.

Further, Wikipedian's must stop claiming either directly or by implication that the Wikipedia has the same authority as Brittanica or other professional encyclopedias - it does not, and it cannot have such authority because the process and protocols that provide that authority are absent. To make such statements is a violation of public trust in my view. It can and maybe should be prosecuted by public authorities. This may startle many of the fine contributors here, and I mean no offence, but I feel strongly that something must be done to address the issues and ensure the public is protected.

That Brittanica and others have liability disclaimers is not a defence.

Steven Zenith 03:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. — Knowledge Seeker 04:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Um, "prosecuted by public authorities" for... what exactly? You are treading dangerously close to violating the no legal threats policy. --FCYTravis 07:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless you get can this warning added to every single site on the internet. Evil MonkeyHello 08:25, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No, no, no. Seeing as Wikipedia does not explicitly CLAIM authority/authenticity - nowhere do we say "Wikipedia is dogmatically the truth about the state of knowledge of the world" - we cannot be told that we will be sued. And anyway, for what? For providing someone with the wrong answer in a pub quiz? "Your honour, my client lost £50 on that quiz. This caused him grievous mental harm...." I am not usually a sarcastic, negative or flaming sort of person, but when we are accused of breaking a law, wrongly, I have to come down ahrd. If you do not like Wikipedia, go elsewhere. Do not threaten us. Batmanand 08:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I just viewed Mr. Zenith's user page. Oy vey! Nelson Ricardo 02:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • In the absence of any explanation Nelson I will take that as a complement :-) - Steven Zenith 05:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, my remarks were not intended to be threatening - only to observe a risk to the public - which may be considered significant. Your defensive opposition does not alter the case and is exactly the cause for concern :-) . The public trust is violated if there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public in ways that are harmful or potentially harmful. Various jurisdictions may consider they have cause - and in my view that cause may be legitimate. The claim protested for the general authority of Wikipedia is greater than at an individual web page. Individuals on the Internet can also see action from these public protectors for the same reasons, if it is willful. Ignorance is not a defence. Steven Zenith 09:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

In anycase, I am only asking that we be more upfront about what is already understood on Wikipedia by Wikipedians. My concern is for the public. Put the first lines of the disclaimer where they can be clearly seen - hiding them in the small print is irresponsible in my view. Steven Zenith 10:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • We already clearly state anyone can edit. People should know to double check the information they get here with other sources. Wikipedia can't be held liable for other people's ignorance. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to believe that the general public would understand this - and know how to read Wikipedia as we do - but it simply is not a reasonable expectation and the public need protecting. Steven Zenith 20:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • But it isn't deliberate! r3m0t talk 12:08, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is deliberate, even in ignorance. If a member of the public makes misguided choices that lead to harm to themselves or others based upon incorrect information from an authority that appears to offer a realiable source then that is a willful act against the public interest. All I am asking - to prevent such a claim - is that it be stated clearly for the public to see. -- Steven Zenith 20:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • so you claim we're unreliable compared to what? The Bible? The Internet? The Britannica? The newspapers? Passing the accuracy of the Bible (which is your personal choice), we're massively more reliable than "the Internet" on average, we're massively more up-to-date than Britannica (if you sue us because we said God is a penis, on one occasion, you should sue Britannica for getting wrong the president of Bolivia, etc., and the newspapers, don't make me laugh, at least we have all sorts of bias, and can correct the most outrageous mistakes. Wikipedia is the place where people learn to trust no single source, and that's priceless. dab () 14:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Where in Wikipedia have we claimed either directly or by implication that the Wikipedia has the same authority as Brittanica or other professional encyclopedias ? A website that everyone can edit in violation of public trust ? This request lacks common sense. -- 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In the disclaimer the list of example disclaimers provided by other Encyclopedia is an implication that the Wikipedia disclaimer is similar and therefore Wikipedia has a similar authority. Numerous claims have been made on this page that Wikipedia has or can have the same authority as Britannica. The Wikipedia Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections also makes assertions that Wikipedia is no less and authority than Britannica. The comment before yours makes the assertion. Common sense is not required in the face of simple observations. Steven Zenith 20:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • not at all. I invite you to (re)read my comment. I am saying that WP is more up to date than Britannica. I am also saying that in cases where you, for example, encounter "penis" in unexpected places on Wikipedia, that may be a sign that the accuracy of the article in question may not be up to Britannica standards. But hey, even if I claim "Wikipedia is twice as reliable as Britannica!!1!" that will still only be a statement you read on a Wikipedia talk page, go figure. dab () 20:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Up-to-date in what sense? Up-to-dateness has no meaning if the content has no authority. I am not concerned about the obvious "penis" cases - I am concerned about the subtle cases - those well meant and manipulative - that the public are not adequately warned. - Steven Zenith 05:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Abraham Lincoln (February 13, 1809 – April 15, 1865), sometimes called Abe Lincoln and nicknamed Honest Abe, the Rail Splitter... Okay... that seems a bit wrong. So now we have subtle nonsense and misinformation. Now, is it our personal duty to protect people from this sort of nonsense? Some people argue that if these people don't have common sense, they get tricked, and there's nothing we can do about it. Some people argue that we have done our part with our own disclaimer. You argue that we must do more, because we have to protect the public from misinformation. Wikipedia is a grand new experiment. In the past, if you published something, your credibility would be put on the line, people would put their trust in you. A webpage has a single owner, and although he can edit it at any time, we know that this page is by this one person, and if our trust is violated by that person, then we can ignore this person. Wikipedia represents a paradigm shift, from one ownership to many owners. Therefore, we have many owners of the page, and now it is the credibility of the owners as a whole that is being judged, whether or not it's through ignorance or malice that this credibility is dropped. Obviously, you're arguing that the collective credibility of lots of people is less than the credibility of one person. I think a more appropriate way of phrasing this is saying that there is a higher variation of credibility, but in general the credibility of an article tends to go up over time, punctuated by huge drops of credibility (when 'penis' is inserted, for example). During this accumulation of credibility, you expressed concern that subtle cases - those well meant and manipulative. I'd view this as collateral damage. You're gradually improving an article, right? And then someone accidently/maliciously causes damage. We lose some credibility. This misinformation becomes a drain to the pages credibility the longer it stays on the article.
    • So, my point is, we have all this bouncing credibility, and it is really that you want to warn people of, not the actually 'lack' of credibility. Obviously, there has never been anything like this before. So people must be warned. Is this your position?
  • Well, considering the loads and loads of software/source out there that, tucked away in a tiny hidden corner, state in their EULAs that they cannot be held responsible for any damage whatsoever... okay, I'll play devils advocate here. Just because they do it doesn't mean we have to do it. In that case, is it reasonable and correct to put this disclaimer in a more prominent place? I'd argue it's not feasible, because not everyone stumbles onto Wikipedia from the front page, hint hint. So then what? In big red text, on the top of every single page, we have our disclaimer? Sounds a bit silly to me. Ambush Commander 02:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent point - I am asking that similar warnings be given on all pages - they do not have to be silly. Steven Zenith 05:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Common sense is not required in the face of simple observations. Not required ? Huh ? Do we have the responsibity to protect those who don't use common sense ? Why ? Do people who don't use common sense actually read disclaimers ? And, pages in Wikipedia already have a link at the bottom to get to Wikipedia:General disclaimer. IMO, this is more than enough of a warning. At the most, we get a lawyer amongst the Wikipedians to check the wording there. Let's not overkill. -- 12:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shavuot today ?

If any administrator/sysop can confirm that today is Shavuot, please add this Jewish holiday to the MainPage. It says so on Current events, but there is no mention on the Shavnot page. Thanks. -- 12:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer 10

Pioneer 10 has not left the solar system, the first craft to do this will probably be Voyager 1. Pioneer 10 was the first craft to go beyond the orbit of Neptune (and Pluto). Some scientists content that this is the definition of leaving the solar system, but most agree that it will need to pass through the heliopause first. Zerbey 15:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's correct, but is this or was this on the Main Page somewhere? Or is there somewhere else it needs to be fixed? Perhaps it was on the Main Page but has now been removed? — Knowledge Seeker 07:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this was on yesterday's Selected Anniversaries. -- 11:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)