Talk:Wikipedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index) (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms 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.

Article milestones Date Process Result February 5, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 9, 2005 Peer review Reviewed April 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted April 1, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept August 1, 2006 Featured article review Demoted September 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed August 12, 2008 Peer review Reviewed August 15, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept July 21, 2009 Peer review Reviewed July 26, 2012 Peer review Reviewed November 7, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2014 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited September 5, 2014 Good article reassessment Delisted May 21, 2021 Peer review Reviewed February 4, 2023 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 12, 2023 Peer review Reviewed Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 15, 2005, and January 15, 2026. This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007. Current status: Former featured article

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: Keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2022, see discussion. Keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2019, see discussion. Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2017, see discussion. Delete (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2016, see discussion. Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2015, see discussion. Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 7 April 2014, see discussion. Tedium (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2014, see discussion. No consensus (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2011, see discussion. Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2010, see discussion. Speedy close (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2010, see discussion. Speedy keep, 6 September 2008, see discussion. Speedy close, 17 May 2007, see discussion. Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2006, see discussion.

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  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Wikipedia Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance). Internet High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Brands Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Books: Reference works This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook This article is supported by the Reference works task force. Spoken Wikipedia 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 Guild of Copy Editors 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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Nicholson Baker (2008-04-09). "How I fell in love with Wikipedia [1]". The Guardian. "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Telegraph (UK). 2009-08-17. Stephen McNeice (2013-05-14). "See how Wikipedia updates in real-time". Newstalk. David Stabler (2013-05-11). "Wikipedia a passion for Portland's Jason Moore". The Oregonian. Taleen Postian (2022-11-03). "Why So Much Hate on Wikipedia?". The Villanovan. Mark O’Connell (2025-06-29). "I love Wikipedia so much, I hardly even minded when it killed me off". The Irish Times. "Editorial: Happy 25th birthday, Wikipedia. We now admit to liking you". Chicago Tribune. 2026-01-16.

To-do list for Wikipedia: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-01-05 Long term goal: return to featured status Article structure has been significantly changed and needs fixing and further improvement. See if anything from Italian page can be used to improve this one. Consider implementing any suggestions made by the most recent peer review, including the automated peer-review suggestions. Implement suggestions made by the 2012 Peer Review. Improve/Add Citations Fix the problems that were found in the 2012 FAC Add demographic information from pew report [1] Stylistic problems, specifically: ...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: Reliability of Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia Wikipedia in popular culture 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.

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. Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Wikipedia (diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Wikipedia (diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Wikipedia (diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Wikipedia (diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Wikipedia (diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Wikipedia (diff) Copied Wikipedia (oldid, history) → List of Wikipedia controversies (diff)

This article is the 1st Wikipedia article in the English-language Wikipedia. 900-thousandth article – not identified 800-thousandth article – not identified 700-thousandth article – not identified 600-thousandth article – Poona Bayabao 500-thousandth article – Special settlements in the Soviet Union 400-thousandth article – Eustace Percy, 1st Baron Percy of Newcastle 300-thousandth article – Rene Gagnon 200-thousandth article – Neil Warnock 100-thousandth article – Hastings, New Zealand 1st article – WikiPedia For later article milestones, see {{Million milestones}}.

All Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.

This talk page is only for discussions concerning the improvement of Wikipedia's article on itself. To ask questions about using Wikipedia, see the Help desk or The Teahouse. To get help with reference questions, see the Reference desk. To discuss Wikipedia policy or practices, see the Village pump. For other useful links, see the Community portal. 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

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened: January 6 to 12, 2013 September 8 to 14, 2013 September 15 to 21, 2013 September 22 to 28, 2013 September 29 to October 5, 2013 October 6 to 12, 2013 January 19 to 25, 2014 February 16 to 22, 2014 February 23 to March 1, 2014 March 9 to 15, 2014 Section sizes Section size for Wikipedia (67 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 10,342 10,342 274 274 History 45 40,592 0 1,618 Nupedia 3,439 3,439 153 153 Launch and growth 17,147 17,147 759 759 Sister projects 4,169 4,169 113 113 Milestones 14,151 14,151 489 489 Impacts of generative AI on Wikipedia views 1,641 1,641 104 104 Collaborative editing 144 24,460 8 1,018 Restrictions 8,492 8,492 344 344 Review of changes 1,500 1,500 127 127 Vandalism 4,155 4,155 269 269 Disputes and edit warring 10,169 10,169 270 270 Policies and content 2,544 4,839 141 328 Content policies and guidelines 2,295 2,295 187 187 Governance 1,775 8,374 77 607 Administrators 1,532 1,532 118 118 Dispute resolution 2,871 5,067 223 412 Arbitration Committee 2,196 2,196 189 189 Community 7,835 14,749 364 723 Research 4,190 4,190 240 240 Diversity 2,724 2,724 119 119 Language editions 15,167 17,168 571 784 English Wikipedia editor numbers 2,001 2,001 213 213 Reception 10,319 62,816 369 3,068 Accuracy of content 13,244 13,244 679 679 Discouragement in education 4,760 7,400 305 510 Medical information 2,640 2,640 205 205 Coverage of topics and systemic bias 7,337 13,257 250 539 Systemic biases 5,920 5,920 289 289 Explicit content 6,854 6,854 418 418 Privacy 4,199 4,199 251 251 Sexism 6,566 6,566 238 238 Nine Theses 977 977 64 64 Operation 17 35,827 0 1,463 Wikimedia Foundation and affiliate movements 9,154 9,154 430 430 Software operations and support 7,260 7,260 248 248 Automated editing 4,269 4,269 191 191 Hardware operations and support 6,963 6,963 245 245 Internal research and operational development 3,748 3,748 191 191 Internal news publications 1,869 1,869 50 50 The Wikipedia Library 2,547 2,547 108 108 Access to content 127 25,581 0 1,317 Content licensing 6,696 6,696 338 338 Methods of access 8,465 16,482 410 951 Mobile access 8,017 8,017 541 541 Chinese access 2,276 2,276 28 28 Cultural influence 69 45,606 0 2,111 Trusted source to combat fake news 2,006 2,006 72 72 Readership 2,858 7,260 227 329 COVID-19 pandemic 4,402 4,402 102 102 Cultural significance 10,696 20,960 616 1,211 Awards 3,263 3,263 158 158 Satire 7,001 7,001 437 437 Publishing 4,505 4,505 230 230 Research use 10,806 10,806 269 269 Related projects 3,443 3,443 213 213 See also 723 723 0 0 Notes 26 26 0 0 References 17 19,503 0 0 Footnotes 17,930 17,930 0 0 Wikipedia-affiliated and primary sources 1,320 1,320 0 0 Sources 236 236 0 0 Further reading 6,443 16,386 0 0 Academic studies 4,866 4,866 0 0 Books 4,115 4,115 0 0 Book review–related articles 962 962 0 0 External links 1,386 1,386 0 0 Total 331,821 331,821 13,524 13,524

It is no good saying you are not logged in without providing an easily accessible link by which to do it 80.41.3.131 (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to discuss this would be WP:Teahouse. This page is to discuss the article Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may want Special:UserLogin (or Special:CreateAccount for creating an account). SeaDragon1 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia search peak: Nov 2007 (100 searches)^[1]
Wikipedia search dip: Jun-Jul 2025 (10 searches)^[1] SeaDragon1 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know *_*JX*_* (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something here. Those number don’t mean how many times a term has been searched, just the search interest.

Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point on the chart for the given region and time. A value of 100 is the peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is half as popular. A score of 0 means there was not enough data for this term.

OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Something Sinister. Legit source? Espngeek (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, but not a source in my opinion. Maybe see also? Regards, a most likely very cozy Cooldood5555 ✈️ (let's talk) 03:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't use non-reliable links as see alsos either. Someone's niche YouTube channel is not anything we need to mention or link to. Meters (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia's has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 2 § Wikipedia's until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Accuracy of content" subsection, we have Joseph Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."^[1]

Using sarch on the PDF, I am unable to find either of those quotes there (no use of "topical", "random", or "humanities".) Perhaps he said them somewhere else? I've flagged for a failed verification, but this should be cleaned. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-trout I'm so sorry! I've literally been sleeping at 12-3 AM so my sanity might not be good --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear for those looking on, p-a-a is not apologizing for some thing they've done to the article; they posted a intended-to-be-helpful-but-not-appropriate-to-the-situation response, and then undid it, then posted the trout. (I'm only pointing this other edits don't think they're saying they were the one who posted the material in question, or have done something to correct the matter; the matter is still unaddressed.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know i am one day late to this, but Wikipedia is officially 25 years old! Show some love, respect and positivity to all editors and administrators. Happy Birthday to the free and ultimate encyclopedia! MainRecline (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:25th anniversary for all of the backstage parts of this. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: aren't we technically biased on this article? SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 17:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are part of Wikipedia. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 17:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make "us" biased? Are you perhaps thinking of something closer to WP:COI? HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. Got those two mixed up. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 03:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big COI banner up there ahaha Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice. My brain just skipped over the banners. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 21:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. SeaDragon1 (talk, contribs, happy birthday!) 18:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)