Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The editing and deletion discussions are manned by volunteers. Your donation would not have changed their income or the comfort of their work. The different treatment you desire would not be worth the donation. The editors you are talking to are not likely to want a Wikipedia stripped of proper editorial review or to be a more promotional site.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. As a user-generated source , it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism , a work in progress , or simply incorrect.
John Seigenthaler, an American journalist, was the subject of a defamatory Wikipedia hoax article in May 2005. The hoax raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content. Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, the site has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, under which anyone can edit most articles, has led to concerns ...
(The current list of proposed usability improvements includes 9 separate proposals concerning the text editor and the editing process, so this issue is not unknown in the Wikipedia community.) [1] There may be many people out there who would like to contribute but can't, perhaps especially women – Wikipedia is dominated by male editors. [2] [3]
A note on the separate status of the Wikimedia Endowment. The Wikimedia Endowment, held from 2016 to 2023 by the Tides Foundation and now a standalone 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is not and has never been included in Wikimedia Foundation assets, even though Wikimedia Foundation fundraising staff solicit donations to the Endowment and the Wikimedia Foundation itself made donations to the Endowment.
It's not intended to bring Wikipedia to a standstill, Z-man, it's intended to get the Foundation's attention. And unions didn't destroy Detroit... but that's off-topic. Rd232 talk 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC) And 50 people won't do that anymore than the big list of complaints that people already generated.
This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should generally be avoided – or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position taken, whether that be "keep", "delete" or some other objective.
While the wiki system isn't necessary to produce such a body of data, convincing people to give away large amounts of their writing for free is difficult without the low bar the wiki system creates. Additionally, it's important to note that both personal and organizational pages on the Web become out of date (so-called ' bit rot ').