Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 31 October 2007

	Misplaced Pages 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.
	Misplaced Pages has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 5, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 12, 2005 Peer review Reviewed April 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted August 1, 2006 Featured article review Demoted September 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2024. Current status: Former featured article, current good article
Error: no action code found in the 'action3' parameter; please add a code or remove other parameters starting with 'action3' (help).

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Misplaced Pages Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-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 Websites: Computing This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:WP1.0

Template:FAOL

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Criticism of Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages in popular culture History of Misplaced Pages — 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Priority 1 (top)

Archives

Index /Archive 1: Sep 2001 - Apr 2003 /Archive 2: Jun 2003 - Aug 2003 /Archive 3: Oct 2003 - Mar 2004 /Archive 4: Apr 2004 - Dec 2004 /Archive 5: Jan 2005 - Aug 2005 /Archive 6: Sep 2005 - Nov 2005 /Archive 7: Dec 2005 - Feb 2006 /Archive 8: Mar 2006 - May 2006 /Archive 9: Jun 2006 - Aug 2006 /Archive 10: Aug 2006 - Oct 2006 /Archive 11: Oct 2006 - Dec 2006 /Archive 12: Dec 2006 - Jan 2007 /Archive 13: Jan 2006 - Mar 2007

yes]

Larry Sanger? No Larry Sanger?

Look, I have no opinion on this, but the edit warring has to stop. Please discuss proposed changes to the infobox's "Author:" attribute here before making them. =David_(contribs) 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss it. Jimbo told me on the IRC channel that he founded wikipedia himself.--Trulexicon 04:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not verifiable ;-). --Stephan Schulz 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is: <ref>Jimbo told me</ref>. :) Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

article about wikipedia on wikipedia?????

why?Mariofan1000 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages itself, just like, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica, is a subject worthy of an article, of discussion. -- Anonymous Dissident 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica has an article on Misplaced Pages as well. It also has one on wikis, Jimmy Wales, and Stephen Colbert, and itself. While we should avoid self-references, going out of our way to do so is also kind of a self-reference. Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should be written in first person.

After all, in a sense, wikipedia is talking about itself. Therefore it is possible that the wiki is conscious, and should be construed as an "I". Xhin Give Back Our Membership! 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying? It doesn't really make sense. If you are suggesting that Misplaced Pages should be referred to in this article in the first person, then you are being ridiculous. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is like any other article on here, and so it should be written like other articles, and should not be treated any differently. Sebi  06:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See also avoid self references. Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumb Question

What was the first article created on Misplaced Pages. I have had a look around but I have only found editors/articles from July 01.134.148.5.119 09:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess a tie between all the articles imported from Nupedia? See Misplaced Pages:Nupedia and Misplaced Pages for a list, including weird things like Donegal fiddle tradition which I believe was originally written by Larry Sanger. 68.175.102.171 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:UuU for the oldest surviving edit on wikipedia. ffm 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Audio file

The audio file really needs to be updated. Any volunteers?Randomblue 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Have added to the to do list. Suggest we wait until this article is in really good shape, possibly FA again (one day?). Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Google Search Results

I've noticed recently that google has started giving brief summaries of the contents of wiki pages instead of the first sentence or two from the page itself as is usually the case with google search results. As an example, searching for "Arabic Language" the search result for wiki is "Misplaced Pages article, with links to other articles on Modern Standard and Classical Arabic, as well as other varieties of the language." Is this a google thing or is it a wikipedia thing? TheStripèdOne 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They're all in cahoots, mate.59.167.86.232 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages fork

Misplaced Pages fork redirects to this article. I think the article should say something more about the over 500 Misplaced Pages forks. Should we use Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks as a reference for that number, or is that too self-referential? --75.48.165.135 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It used to redirect to Misplaced Pages:Sites using MediaWiki, that might be a good idea to make it point to Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks but that's would be a cross namespace redirect. -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statement removed

I am removing the following statement as it has been tagged as needing a source for several months:

• Because of the nature of the "copyleft" license Misplaced Pages uses, Misplaced Pages's content has been mirrored and forked by many sites including database dumps.

If anyone can add a source for this, feel free to re-add it. —Angr 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I support your decision --Youhavenolife 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MIRROR. ffm 13:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the non-free material?

Many language versions of Misplaced Pages are free content, while others, such as the English version, include non-free material.--71.234.97.27 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, the English Misplaced Pages includes album covers on articles. Other WP, like the French one, don't do that. You can read more at WP:NFC. -- lucasbfr 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The text should probably be more specific here. We're talking about media, right? Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken Links

Was discussing irony of criticism against wikipedia for lack of proper citations (had a cite on that XD) went to visit the site listed and was unable to access the page. Someone should look into this, it managed to get wikipedia nearly banned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphoray (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea

Misplaced Pages should let people upload music to certain sites that the music would aply to. Then People could listen to music while there reading.

The music would have to be freely licensed, though. —Angr 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Article locked, can someone do an edit by proxy please?

Following is too petty for article (a minor politican raising an unimportant question, of minimal relevance to this article) so I think it should be removed:
On 29 September, 2007, Italian politician Franco Grillini raised a parliamentary question with the Minister of Cultural Resources and Activities about the necessity of freedom of panorama. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Misplaced Pages, "the seventh most consulted website" to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues.
Thanks.--82.148.54.193 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the importance of this event. To have Misplaced Pages mentioned on the floor of the Italian parliament is surely interesting to anyone concerned about Misplaced Pages's notability. I could not locate the reference provided, to 'Italy Global Nation', a site where 'Misplaced Pages' was not found, so I replaced it with a citation to the same parliamentary speech at Franco Grillini's web site. EdJohnston 01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In the future use {{editprotected}}. ffm 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia globe

Is it just me, or did the wikipedia globe (right above teh search bar) change? 76.109.11.127 02:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)chewka

Not within the last few years. See Misplaced Pages:Logos and slogans. ffm 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

British and american wikipedia?

Is it just me or exist two version of the english wikip edia? Exist it an american wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordbecket (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two English-language Wikipedias, but they're not an American English version and a British English version. There's the "regular" English Misplaced Pages (which accepts both British and American usage, as long as an article is internally consistent), and there's the Simple English Misplaced Pages, designed for readers with a limited vocabulary. —Angr 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So what're the rules for the various spellings?

Dsmccohen 09:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR and WP:SPELLING. —Angr 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages primarily run by editors with liberal views?

I am finding that majority of articles ( for ex MoveOn.org articles, Al Gore article ) have a clear liberal slant - yet, I could not find a single page with a conservative slant.

Which leads me to wonder if Misplaced Pages is primarily a medium for expressing liberal views? - Not that there is anything wrong with it ;) TwakTwik 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A fun project to do would be to use WikiScanner to location map the IP addresses of all changes and then do a cross look up of blue and red states. TwakTwik 02:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors who are not from the United States. I would guess more than half of them. A.Z. 02:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you should note some articles having a slant one way or the other; Misplaced Pages has a strict neutral point of view policy. I'll go check out the ones that you mentioned. Were there any others that you saw having a particular slant one way or another? GlassCobra 02:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example would be Bill Clinton's page, specifically around impeachment section TwakTwik 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not liberal, or conservative. It's democratic.. which means mob rule. No matter how blind and idiotic the majority is, the majority determines what stays on the page. So Misplaced Pages is a good research tool for tools of all kinds, be they left fascists or right fascists. I mean, the Nazi's had lots of peers to review the validity of their eugenics literature. Real bona fide scientific consensus going on in 1930's Germany.59.167.86.232 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Problem

There's an incidence of the word "a" before a vowel (the word "internet") in the final sentence of the fourth paragraph. I'd fix it, but the article is locked, and I'm a wikinoob, alas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.48.35 (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected; thanks for pointing it out! —Angr 05:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Vanity

This is just vanity and self-worship. It's even classed as a "good article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.13.209 (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Barely worth replying to - see by comments #article about wikipedia on wikipedia?????. If you have problems with the GA status, seek a review. Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal issue of Misplaced Pages

Is Misplaced Pages under the USA law since the Wikimedia (and main server) locates in the USA? Thanks. --Manop - TH 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

yes – Gurch 15:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Repetition?

The word "over" is repeated twice in only two sentences, one succeeding the other.

As of September 2007, Misplaced Pages had approximately 8.29 million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.41 billion words for all Wikipedias. The English Misplaced Pages edition passed the 2,000,000 article mark on September 9, 2007, and as of October 14, 2007 it had over 2,047,000 articles consisting of over 890,000,000 words.

Randomblue 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Since English Misplaced Pages != Misplaced Pages, this sounds okay to me. -- Taku 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point was stylistic rather than factual. Perhaps the second "over" could be changed to "more than" to provide a little lexical variation. —Angr 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

History/founding

There used to be a section named "history" on this article but it has been vandalized by TheMarioManiac on May 14th, 2007 and it was badly reverted (deletion actually, but the person probably didn't know it was a real section before being vandalized). Then a new similar section ("Founding") has been written on July 6th, 2007. I think this section "history" is really worthy, so can anybody merge it with the new section "founding"? 16@r 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone reverts badly use the template Un-reverting (unless they are experienced editors, in which case you shouldn't template them (if you do you're likely to get warned yourself ;) Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

you are great

great site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.117.152 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We try. :) GlassCobra 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But we have succeeded so far, haven't we? -- Taku 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet from Google's POV if u searched "fuckedpedia", u'll be asked on top of the results "Did you mean Misplaced Pages". Trypanopediac 14:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Request: Number of UNIQUE words

The article presents the number of wikipedia's words. Is it possible to inform us and the number of its UNIQUE words? -- Kaseluris, Nikos 06:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not in this article. It would be about as relevant as listing how many 10+ letter words there were. Richard001 20:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlock

Could someone please unlock this page? I would like to add some sarcastic criticism of Misplaced Pages along with some off-colour sexual humour. Thank you. --24.235.231.206 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's room on Uncyclopedia for that. —Angr 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Grrr!

Wasn't there a separate article on Wikipedians - saying some welcome new members, others do this or that, etc. Now I can't find it! Expected to see on the See also but not there. Any ideas what the article title is I'm looking for? DionysosProteus 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from looking at the history, there's never been an article on Wikipedians. Wikipedians has always been either a redirect here or to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians, which is outside article space. —Angr 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It was the latter I was looking for. Any reason that's not on the see also list? DionysosProteus 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's in Misplaced Pages: namespace, not article space. It's a page intended for editors, not for readers. —Angr 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have added a dab, though is it worth it? Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Newsmax?

Though it might be true indeed that Misplaced Pages has been infiltrated by left-wing vandals, the citing of Newsmax as a source is just sloppy. Newsmax is known to be reactionary and sensational. I read the article referred to and most of it reads like an editorial, as the article does a poor job indeed of making the case that liberals control the Misplaced Pages domain. I removed citation 69 as well as the sentence preceding it.

For your enjoyment, the final sentence of the article, "Most people accept information that is at their fingertips and don't take the time to check original sources. Thus the information superhighway offers everyone access to the same often inaccurate and biased information."

Asaspades9 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Safety of Information

What would happen if the hard drives holding part of wikipedia crashed and failed or some natural cause such as a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or fire destroyed the serevers holding the information on wikipedia? Or someone purposely physically vandalized the hard drives storing Misplaced Pages? Do they back up all the information as it is added in another place so if one server failed not all of the information would be lost?--71.234.111.157 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a warning that "much of the following is out of date as configurations change quickly and frequently:"

http://meta.wikimedia.org/Wikimedia_servers#Overall_system_architecture

But it says, "The system is designed to failover to backup configurations at both the squid and Apache levels, and backup database support is in place, but not in an automatic failover."

The link below that to "Details on database replication in MySQL" doesn't say anything specific to how frequently Wikimedia replicates and distributes its master database, but I would presume that its contents could survive all sorts of disasters, natural and man-made. First draft of history 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Imagine if it just closed shop. All the arrogant losers of the world would have to go write their claptrap elsewhere. There would be a net-wide deluge of pseudo-intellectual, toffeynosed zombie twaddle blipping up all over the WWW. 59.167.86.232 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias

Looking through the article about wikipedia I think there are some neutrality issues particularly regarding the section about reliability and bias. It seems as though it has under represented the argument that these topics are valid and over represented the infalliability of wikipedia. It also is troubling that in outlining the argument the definitions used are ones that users in the wikipedia community created (hyperlinked)Matt1741 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) rather than allowing for an actual argument to take place in which definitions could be agreed upon by both sides.

This may be an article that ought to be reviewed.

Love the rest of the site. Matt1741 10.25.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1741 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is an article on criticism about wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is practically anti-advertising itself.AbsoluteZero255 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There may be some structural problems though in the way that Misplaced Pages is using all the methods that are suspect to describe the suspect problems.Matt1741 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Checks

I am curious to know why Misplaced Pages still has no "did you mean ____?" links when I search for something and accidently spell it wrong. Why is this? Has it not yet been suggested that Misplaced Pages include such a tool? Heretic 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We have Misplaced Pages:Redirect and Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, though if you mean the sort Google search has, then no. It could probably be an improvement; the whole search function here could learn a lot from Google too, though you can search Misplaced Pages with Google if you want. This isn't really the place for such suggestions though, you'd best take it to the village pump or somewhere like that. Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I don't like the way the three separate Misplaced Pages related templates still exclude some of the major articles - reliability, criticism and in culture are all left out. Is there any way we could fit them in somewhere, or rearrange the templates somehow to do so? We could even merge the lot into one super template, perhaps 'Misplaced Pages and related projects' or 'Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia Foundation'. The problem there is that all the unrelated stuff is included if you just want something like the small Wikimedia projects version on e.g. Wikiquote. I don't know of any way to use only part of a template if desired, though it might be possible... Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages community

Take your pick: Misplaced Pages community or Misplaced Pages Community. To which should they redirect? Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

We need an image of Jimbo here - the article is incomplete without it. Take your pick. Any suggestions? We used to have Image:Jimbo-wales---fosdem-2005.jpg IIRC, which I suggested be cropped, though that may have been another article. How about Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg or Image:Jimbo_Wales_in_France_cropped.jpg? There are two others like the former as well. Richard001 07:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be meek and add one to the history section. Richard001 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is in breach of basic Misplaced Pages rules

Rules say that a person or an entity should refrain from writing an article about oneself and leave this task for someone else to ensure objectivity and neutrality, so how could the wikipedia community describe their project by themselves, they should leave that for other encyclopedias like Britannica or whatever rather than this utter selfishness.

Tyranopediac 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

None of us gets paid, so there's no conflict of interest. Anyway, this has been brought up hundreds of times before, and everyone agrees we're capable of writing neutrally about Misplaced Pages. —Angr 19:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean a non-profit organization's article could be contributed to by people who run the organization in question?! Is the elimination of financial motives of inobjectivity enough for ensuring neutrality?! If so, then hopefully Misplaced Pages will stick to one standard when other non-profit entities contribute about themselves. Tyranopediac 21:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only a problem when the article in question suffers from a lack of neutrality. If you think that this article is not neutral, please indicate the parts that need attention. Sijo Ripa 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

An imbalanced coverage of a topic deosn't necessarily need to come in the form of presenting one or more point by biased POV(s). It could also be by overlooking or censoring a valid criticism. For example in the process of building an article from scratch by multiple editors on Misplaced Pages, there is a tendency to build an incoherent text because of bits of info being added separately by different editors. If I go now to the article page (of this topic: Misplaced Pages) and write such criticism as a characteristic of wiki-built articles, my comment would be quickly removed by the INFLUENTIAL people here. Tyranopediac 13:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-profit organizations often--even usually--have paid workers. That includes the Wikimedia Foundation. But Misplaced Pages's editors are not paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. —Angr 21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are naturally enthusiastic about their project so their views on it are automatically biased. Tyranopediac 10:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See my response above: In short, not having an article on ourself would be a self reference and Britannica has an article on their 15th edition. Please have a skim through the talk page before you ask - this question has been raised twice above. Richard001 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this article have an FAQ?

I don't watch this article, but I've seen the question above raised three times on this talk page alone, and we have 16 archives. Are there any others besides this that get frequently asked? I note that a lot of busy pages are using FAQs, such as evolution, intelligent design etc. Perhaps this is something we could consider. Richard001 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of editors

Sorry for all these discussions, but I feel we need better information on the number of Wikipedians too. Often quoted is the number of editors, but this statistic is vague and sure to be misleading. I'd like to know how many active contributors we have, and more statistics on this in general. Does anyone know if/where such information could be found? It would also be possible to ascertain a reasonable estimate based on a sampling of existing users accounts, looking at what fraction are currently active. Richard001 09:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliability daughter

Just reading reliability of Misplaced Pages at the moment and I think 'quality of Misplaced Pages' might be a slightly better reflection of its scope. Comments welcome at Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages#Article name. Richard001 10:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Richard, are you the official spokesman for Misplaced Pages or something? I mean you are commenting on every single issue brought up here! Tyranopediac 10:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Self Obsess Much?

Seriously, I think that Misplaced Pages has a few of it's facts wrong! By the way- did Google write an article about how good it was?

No! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.240.47 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Google an Encyclopedia? No. Does this article talk about how good Misplaced Pages is? No. —Angr 06:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In a way it does, it implies self-notability and self-importance. The truth is Misplaced Pages is important but it shouldn't "say" that about itself. Other sites present themselves to the public through an "About" page, and if it is necessary to praise themselves they quote what newspapers, books ... etc written by others say about them. Tyranopediac 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article fully complies with our neutral point of view policy. It includes both positive and negative opinions that other, independent sources have written. Misplaced Pages is a notable topic, beyond a doubt, as it's one of the most highly-trafficked websites in the world. GlassCobra 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is magnificent ©™® I mean I would rather wake up tomorrow and there would be no sun than there would be no Misplaced Pages.. The Earth revolves around Misplaced Pages not around the sun anymore!!! And it's absolutely necessary that Misplaced Pages reminds everybody of this fact by such an article, an "About" page is just not enough. Tyranopediac 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexa

For the first time, Alexa stats now ranks WP as the 8th most visited website. --Camptown 09:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good that you mentioned Alexa.com, they don't give a rank to themselves although their job is to rank websites. Wikedpedia should follow their example. The appropriate place for any description that Misplaced Pages would like to give of itself to the readers is on a sort of "About" page(s) like all other sites do, not on an encyclopedic article. The same as if you are a famous person, you should not write the article about yourself on Misplaced Pages but it is quite normal that you write your user page because that's your "About" page. Tyranopediac 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That might be feasible if Misplaced Pages weren't mirrored on other sites under different names. But it is. Why shouldn't about.com have an article on Misplaced Pages? —Angr 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In case you really didn't understand, here is a clarification: I wasn't talking about "about.com", I meant an "About-This-Site" page that Misplaced Pages should use for introducing itself to the public instead of having an encyclopedic article glorifying itself. Also, I don't see at all, how could the mirror sites prevent Misplaced Pages from making this change (from article to about page)?!¿ Tyranopediac 10:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to happen. As has already been pointed out to you, this discussion has been had many times before, and the outcome has always been the same. And, at any rate, an article talk page is not the place to suggest deletion.

This article is not going away. If you think that there are specific problems with how Misplaced Pages is presented here, please feel free to bring them up here. But the general griping is not productive. -- Vary | Talk 13:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggested what I believe is absolutely needed to be done, whether it will be done or not that's up to Misplaced Pages and its influential people as I said above. In the very least, when someone ask for adding a valid point of criticism to the article, that should be possible, if there is any degree of editorial democracy here (direct editing is not possible for this article in the moment). One of the most serious points of criticism is that original contributions published for the first time on Misplaced Pages are being stolen by other sites that copyright 100% of what they steal, and when Misplaced Pages is informed about the infringements, responsibles here just don't care about it. Some cynical people may go as far as that Wikedpedia is complicit in this piracy of the production of its own contributors. You are invited to contribute (text, images, software ... whatever), then you learn that someone is claiming your contribution as his, you ask Misplaced Pages to do something and at best they'll tell you: We really can't, the pirates (or mirror sites in Misplaced Pages's euphemism) are out of control. Tyranopediac 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. Last I heard, new users are auto confirmed four days after their accounts are created, so if you can't edit it now you should be able to very soon. In the meantime, if there is any properly referenced material you think should be in the article, you can present it here. Protection of articles that are frequently vandalized is an unfortunate necessity. -- Vary | Talk 16:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mirror sites are allowed, per our licensing policy (the GFDL). Some are infringing our copyright, but the vast majority has the right to copy us :). In case you wondered, there is a Misplaced Pages:About page, introducing Misplaced Pages for our readers. It makes sense to have an article about Misplaced Pages so the readers of answers.com can learn about us. I hope that helps :) -- lucasbfr 16:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyleft or GFDL is fine (like what answers.com does) but to copy from copyleft source like Misplaced Pages then publish the final work as copyright which is what I was reporting, that is infringement and Misplaced Pages just turn a blind eye to it. You want a specific example: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Pixelated-reality-43755.shtml Content copied from various digital photography articles in Misplaced Pages and at the bottom of all Softpedia pages you will find: "Softpedia. All rights reserved" + a link to their "Copyright Information" page: http://www.softpedia.com/user/copyright_information.shtml Tyranopediac 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Engineering and technology good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Misplaced Pages articles
• Top-importance Misplaced Pages articles
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
• GA-Class Internet culture articles
• High-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Unassessed Websites articles
• Unknown-importance Websites articles
• Unassessed Websites articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists