Talk:Wikipedia
|
This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Images[edit]
Wasn't there a fuss a while back over the choice of image used when smallpox was a featured image?
English WP is about due for one of its 'Why is this (topic/image/whatever) on the Main Page - it is the end of the world as we know it' kerfuffles. Anna Livia (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
As of 2019[edit]
This sentence could probably be updated. Anna Livia (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia What's the full sentence? Spud (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Christopher (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I gave the start of the sentence - would adding quotes and three dots be clearer? Anna Livia (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
WWII start date?[edit]
I'm trying to figure out what User:BruceGrubb was trying to say in his addition to the "Bias in Wikipedia" section: "This bias even extends to what sources are considered realiable...enough [sic] though one of the sources that says September 18, 1931 was made during the war by the United State [sic] Army: Prelude to War which clearly states "Remember that date, September 18, 1941. A date we should remember as well as December 7, 1941. For on that date, in 1931 the war we are now fighting began" [1]. Prelude to War was a film directed by Frank Capra as war propaganda. Is it "bias" to exclude war propaganda films as "realiable" [sic] sources, or is it just responsible sourcing? As for the "at least five 21st century reliable sources" which support the September 18, 1931 date, I can probably find at least five published sources to support literally any point I want to make. That doesn't mean the five cited by Grubb are in the majority, and two are not even WWII-focused sources. InsertNameHere (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's not just Prelude to War but September 18, 1941 is also supported by publishers such as Transaction Publishers (now part of Routledge), ABC-CLIO, Peter Lang, Greenwood Publishing Group, and the University Press of Kentucky. So say that they are "war propaganda" or "not even WWII-focused" is silly -- they are reliable. If anything this demonstrates the bias I am talking about.
- In fact some were regarded as reliable enough to use as references for "The dates for the beginning of war in the Pacific include the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War on 7 July 1937, or the earlier Japanese invasion of Manchuria, on 19 September 1931." But if the war started in either 1937 or 1931 than it could not have lasted from 1939-1945 as it was already going on, in Asia, for at least 2 years and perhaps as many as 8.-BruceGrubb (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
New skin[edit]
Wikipedia's new skin is a fucking abomination. Please don't import it over here. Vee (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
WP copying[edit]
It can be amusing to make an update to 'an obscure topic' and watch the changes spreading along the WP-tubes. Anna Livia (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Uh… care to elaborate on that? --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Bias[edit]
For the section Bias, the only sources of the removed content were primary. Ledes do not need sourcing, and theoretically there shouldn’t be sources for ledes. (Only many articles fall out. You might see one editor or another removing them any time on such articles. Ww2 is a widely known subject). If sources are in contradiction, it will be presented as debated, and all POVs referenced with reliable sources will be shown. The only exceptions are niche subjects, which is a big flaw of Wikipedia. Cheers. User:New world (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's true Wikipedia leads don't necessarily need sourcing as long as there's sources for the same claim lower in the article. As for RationalWiki there's not a rule here against original research, in fact it's encouraged. Chillpilled (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Chillpilled: The problem is also that, all good criticism in mind, a majority of sources make it start in 1939. Further down in the lede, the Japanese conflict is mentioned. The idea that some reliable sources are more used than others is wrong, at least they shouldn’t be. In that case it will be, should be, presented as debated. WikiVoice is largely rejected by the community. The thing is that a majority of sources say it started in 1939, while some others, which are not outright rejected obviously, argue it started in 1937, or some other date. There is even the, not less academic than the others mind you, interpretation that WW1 and WW2 were the same conflict, with a pause, a sort of "truce" between 1918 and 1939 (or some other date this war started). The problem is that a majority, a big majority, says it started in 1939. And so the Wikipedia article states a majority of sources state it started in 1939. The second paragraph deleted was indicating that if sources disagree, that is ignored and one is used instead of the other. But instead, in that case it should be presented as debated. This hardly constitutes bias, as those are the rules and recommandations given. Moreover sometimes these may not be respected, especially with articles on niche subjects. User:New world (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage and @Chillpilled: Hello. Again, no discussion. Apparently I can’t scream (with humor obviously, to show my discontent). But the paragraph was misguided, by extension "wrong" about Wikipedia policies. OR is all well and good, but there is a difference between a well made personal conclusion, and a conclusion made without knowledge of the policies and rules which specifically concern the subject. The above user edited under Ip on the Wikipedia article and was frankly just angry that he didn’t get his way. But it still is somewhat misguided. Cheers, and peace. User:New world (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Chillpilled and @Carthage: Life…, isn’t it beautiful? What is your opinion on life? Did you ever experience it? Or did a relative of yours experience it? Oh and btw it would be nice to receive an answer on this totally off-topic discussion I may have started like 2 weeks ago. Or just revert me next time I do it again. Whichever you please. Or rather anything? New world (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Arcadium Trancefer: Plus 1 involved… Yay, I guess. Or whatever. Anyone? New world (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage and @Chillpilled. Alright. I’m going to delete the passage again, if anybody wants to express concern, please do so now, pls. New world (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- So this is some debate about the WP articles on Korea? As I'm from Wales I'm betting that I could find something that WP says about Wales that I don't like. So I'm thinking about starting a section "anti-Wales bias". But I now live in the the Basque country so maybe I should go looking for "anti-Basque bias too". I'm guessing they will be equally valid, and as no one will know more about either Wales or the Basque Country I expect I could defend my edits.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really know what to say about the passage New world is trying to remove since it's such an esoteric thing. I don't think much would be lost by removing it or at least giving a better example. As for the Korea thing that's Umaru's addition, though Umaru also made a page at minjok about the same subject which is probably better placement. Chillpilled (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't there a story that Liechtenstein was accidentally left off the Treaty of Versailles and in September 1939 found itself fighting two world wars at once? (Will add the 'army going to war and having a 101% return rate - somebody joining them - as an extra.) Wikipedia - like other wikis - reflects the interests and inclinations of its contributors (and those of non-users). Anna Livia (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Er, I'm a little confused. What's the consensus here? I thought the point of contention was the alleged anti-Korean bias, not bias about what sources can or can't be considered reliable in general. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't there a story that Liechtenstein was accidentally left off the Treaty of Versailles and in September 1939 found itself fighting two world wars at once? (Will add the 'army going to war and having a 101% return rate - somebody joining them - as an extra.) Wikipedia - like other wikis - reflects the interests and inclinations of its contributors (and those of non-users). Anna Livia (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really know what to say about the passage New world is trying to remove since it's such an esoteric thing. I don't think much would be lost by removing it or at least giving a better example. As for the Korea thing that's Umaru's addition, though Umaru also made a page at minjok about the same subject which is probably better placement. Chillpilled (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- So this is some debate about the WP articles on Korea? As I'm from Wales I'm betting that I could find something that WP says about Wales that I don't like. So I'm thinking about starting a section "anti-Wales bias". But I now live in the the Basque country so maybe I should go looking for "anti-Basque bias too". I'm guessing they will be equally valid, and as no one will know more about either Wales or the Basque Country I expect I could defend my edits.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage and @Chillpilled. Alright. I’m going to delete the passage again, if anybody wants to express concern, please do so now, pls. New world (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage and @Chillpilled: Hello. Again, no discussion. Apparently I can’t scream (with humor obviously, to show my discontent). But the paragraph was misguided, by extension "wrong" about Wikipedia policies. OR is all well and good, but there is a difference between a well made personal conclusion, and a conclusion made without knowledge of the policies and rules which specifically concern the subject. The above user edited under Ip on the Wikipedia article and was frankly just angry that he didn’t get his way. But it still is somewhat misguided. Cheers, and peace. User:New world (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Chillpilled: The problem is also that, all good criticism in mind, a majority of sources make it start in 1939. Further down in the lede, the Japanese conflict is mentioned. The idea that some reliable sources are more used than others is wrong, at least they shouldn’t be. In that case it will be, should be, presented as debated. WikiVoice is largely rejected by the community. The thing is that a majority of sources say it started in 1939, while some others, which are not outright rejected obviously, argue it started in 1937, or some other date. There is even the, not less academic than the others mind you, interpretation that WW1 and WW2 were the same conflict, with a pause, a sort of "truce" between 1918 and 1939 (or some other date this war started). The problem is that a majority, a big majority, says it started in 1939. And so the Wikipedia article states a majority of sources state it started in 1939. The second paragraph deleted was indicating that if sources disagree, that is ignored and one is used instead of the other. But instead, in that case it should be presented as debated. This hardly constitutes bias, as those are the rules and recommandations given. Moreover sometimes these may not be respected, especially with articles on niche subjects. User:New world (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I suppose, from the perspective of a Korean, the "anti-Korean bias" on English Wikipedia is highly offensive and noteworthy. However, why single out Korea in particular? Or, rather, why not have it be... say.... a subarticle or an essay? Carthage (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Any individual could probably find something about their country in WP which they didn't like. If they couldn't get it changed they could then complain about "anti-wherever bias". Furthermore as they would know far more about "wherever" then any other editor they could really pump it up. Of course that doesn't mean that there isn't, in fact, "anti-Korean bias" or even "anti-wherever bias" but we would have the devil's own job of verifying it on a country-by-country basis if people wanted to add more examples. (I made the same point above about Wales for example).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- So, I was correct in presuming that there was no real consensus reached about any of the content in the bias section, and User:New world was jumping the gun by excising the segment about Wikipedia's odd selectiveness in what sources they cite about World War I? --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know. It seems like were discussing the edits on Korea in general now, tho I was talking about the paragraphe on ww2. Aagin, the 'biases' in that case result from direct guidelines to ensure neutrality... Wikipedia has no opinions. Its just that the vast majority of reliable sources say 1939. Its further developed within the article, not at the very top of the lede. Idk that much anyway, tho it would be nice to at least reach a consenus on that. Cheers. New world (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Plus, on the favoring sources thing, if say two equally respected experts disagree, or actually when two reliable sources disagree, both claims are shown, and attributed. Here there is a (obvious) consensus of sources. Personally I have absolutely nothing against ww2 starting earlier based on the start of conflicts in Asia, tho the vast, vast, majority of sources say 1939, so the lede says 1939. I think ww2 is the wrong exemple of bias here, its known enough for discussions to have happened on this issue, and in fact I looked at the talk page archives, and it was long discussed. New world (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- With WWII is it correct to say - it started formally in 1939, but there were (chains of) events beforehand which contributed to what happened or which are seen in hindsight to have done so, and/or influenced the development of WWII? These would include - the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese invasion of China, and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (present day Ethiopia). There was also a perception in certain quarters from the mid-1930s that there might well be a war in Europe in the not too distant future (passing references in newspapers, correspondence etc) Anna Livia (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Plus, on the favoring sources thing, if say two equally respected experts disagree, or actually when two reliable sources disagree, both claims are shown, and attributed. Here there is a (obvious) consensus of sources. Personally I have absolutely nothing against ww2 starting earlier based on the start of conflicts in Asia, tho the vast, vast, majority of sources say 1939, so the lede says 1939. I think ww2 is the wrong exemple of bias here, its known enough for discussions to have happened on this issue, and in fact I looked at the talk page archives, and it was long discussed. New world (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know. It seems like were discussing the edits on Korea in general now, tho I was talking about the paragraphe on ww2. Aagin, the 'biases' in that case result from direct guidelines to ensure neutrality... Wikipedia has no opinions. Its just that the vast majority of reliable sources say 1939. Its further developed within the article, not at the very top of the lede. Idk that much anyway, tho it would be nice to at least reach a consenus on that. Cheers. New world (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- So, I was correct in presuming that there was no real consensus reached about any of the content in the bias section, and User:New world was jumping the gun by excising the segment about Wikipedia's odd selectiveness in what sources they cite about World War I? --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)