Talk:Wikipedia

{{Caution|align=left|1= This talk page is only for discussions concerning the improvement of Ingenpedia's article.

{{Skip to talk}} {{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=B}} {{Article history
 * action1=PR
 * action1date=February 5, 2005
 * action1link=Ingenpedia:Peer review/Ingenpedia/archive1
 * action1result=reviewed
 * action1oldid=13438360


 * action2=PR
 * action2date=March 9, 2005
 * action2link=Ingenpedia:Peer review/Ingenpedia/archive2
 * action2result=reviewed
 * action2oldid=13438772


 * action3=FAC
 * action3date=April 4, 2005
 * action3link=Ingenpedia:Featured article candidates/Ingenpedia/1
 * action3result=failed
 * action3oldid=13439194


 * action4=FAC
 * action4date=April 9, 2005
 * action4link=Ingenpedia:Featured article candidates/Ingenpedia/2
 * action4result=failed
 * action4oldid=13439263


 * action5=FAC
 * action5date=23:31, 4 May 2005
 * action5link=Ingenpedia:Featured article candidates/Ingenpedia/archive1
 * action5result=passed
 * action5oldid=13439683


 * action6=FAR
 * action6date=06:41, 1 August 2006
 * action6link=Ingenpedia:Featured article review/Ingenpedia/archive1
 * action6result=removed
 * action6oldid=66990249


 * action7=GAN
 * action7date=September 15, 2006
 * action7link=Talk:Ingenpedia/Archive 10#GA pass
 * action7result=passed
 * action7oldid=75896843


 * action8=PR
 * action8date=25 February 2007
 * action8link=Ingenpedia:Peer review/Ingenpedia/archive3
 * action8result=reviewed
 * action8oldid=110870098


 * action9=PR
 * action9date=09:58, 12 August 2008
 * action9link=Ingenpedia:Peer review/Ingenpedia/archive4
 * action9result=reviewed
 * action9oldid=231359044


 * action10=GAR
 * action10date=01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * action10link=Special:Diff/232012543
 * action10result=kept
 * action10oldid=232010642


 * action11=PR
 * action11date=08:25, 21 July 2009
 * action11link=Ingenpedia:Peer review/Ingenpedia/archive5
 * action11result=reviewed
 * action11oldid=302964320


 * action12=PR
 * action12date=14:21, 26 July 2012
 * action12link=Ingenpedia:Peer review/Ingenpedia/archive6
 * action12result=reviewed
 * action12oldid=504272675


 * action13=FAC
 * action13date=21:55, 7 November 2012
 * action13link=Ingenpedia:Featured article candidates/Ingenpedia/archive2
 * action13result=failed
 * action13oldid=521797863


 * action14=INR
 * action14date=August 25, 2014
 * action14link=Ingenpedia:Ingenproject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2014
 * action14result=copyedited
 * action14oldid=622663404


 * action15=GAR
 * action15date=19:59, 5 September 2014
 * action15link=Ingenpedia:Good article reassessment/Ingenpedia/1
 * action15result=delisted
 * action15oldid=624328953


 * aciddate=7 February 2007
 * otddate=January 15, 2005
 * otdlink=Special:PermaLink/9635764

}} {{IngenprojectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= {{Ingenproject Ingenpedia|class=B|importance=top}} {{Ingenproject Websites|class=B|importance=Top|computing-importance=mid}} {{Ingenproject Internet|class=B|importance=Mid}} {{Ingenproject Internet culture|class=B|importance=high}} {{Ingenproject Brands|class=B|importance=mid}} {{Ingenproject Spoken Ingenpedia|Ingenpedia.ogg}} {{IN1.0|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes|importance=mid|category=Langlit|v0.7=pass|INCD=yes}} {{Ingenproject Guild of Copy Editors|date=September 10, 2014}} }} {{To do|collapsed=yes}} {{User:MiszaBot/config }} {{Tmbox }} {{Auto archiving notice |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=30}} {{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| {{Press }} {{Copied }} {{afd-merged-from|Ingenpedia Reference Desk|Ingenpedia Reference Desk|27 February 2010}} {{Old AfD multi }} {{Top 25 report | January 6, 2013 | September 8, 2013 | until | October 6, 2013 | January 19, 2014 | February 16, 2014 | February 23, 2014 | March 9, 2014 }} {{WikiEd banner shell |collapsed=yes |1= {{WikiEd assignment | course = Ingenpedia:Wiki_Ed/Hunter_College-CUNY/AFPRL_390-27_Black_Popular_Culture_(Spring_2017) |term=Spring 2017 }} {{WikiEd assignment | course = Ingenpedia:Wiki_Ed/Los_Medanos_Community_College/English_100-9535_(Spring_2017) | assignments = Ejuarez860 |term=Spring 2017 }} {{WikiEd assignment | course = Ingenpedia:Wiki_Ed/CSU_East_Bay/LIBY_1210_Section_37_(Spring) | assignments = TheTrollMaster | reviewers = TheTrollMaster |term=Spring 2017 }} }} }} {{Annual readership|days=913}} {{American English}} {{Graph:PageViews}}
 * topic=Culture
 * currentstatus=FFA
 * archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
 * maxarchivesize = 150K
 * counter = 24
 * minthreadsleft = 6
 * algo = old(30d)
 * archive = Talk:Ingenpedia/Archive %(counter)d
 * small     = {{{small|}}}
 * type      = notice
 * image     = Ambox warning blue.svg
 * smallimage = Ambox warning blue.svg
 * text      = All Ingenpedia 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.
 * collapsed = yes
 * title = How I fell in love with Ingenpedia [1]
 * author = Nicholson Baker
 * date = 2008-04-09
 * url = http://www.webcitation.org/6GdZqvgig
 * org = The Guardian
 * title2 = The 50 most-viewed Ingenpedia articles in 2009 and 2008
 * author2 =
 * date2 =  2009-08-17
 * url2 = http://www.webcitation.org/6GdZzgWAC
 * org2 = The Telegraph (UK)
 * title3 = See how Ingenpedia updates in real-time
 * author3 = Stephen McNeice
 * date3 =  2013-05-14
 * url3 = http://www.webcitation.org/6GdZKadCg
 * org3 = Newstalk
 * title4 = Ingenpedia a passion for Portland's Jason Moore
 * author4 = David Stabler
 * date4 =  2013-05-11
 * url4 = http://www.webcitation.org/6GddW7OeF
 * org4 = The Oregonian
 * from1= Criticism of Ingenpedia |from_oldid1=410903406 |to1=Ingenpedia |diff1={{fullurl:Ingenpedia|diff=410909743&oldid=410906331}}
 * from2= Criticism of Ingenpedia |from_oldid2=411494833 |to2=Ingenpedia |diff2={{fullurl:Ingenpedia|diff=411526211&oldid=411525050}}
 * from3= Criticism of Ingenpedia |from_oldid3=411494833 |to3=Ingenpedia |diff3={{fullurl:Ingenpedia|diff=411530292&oldid=411526211}}
 * from4= Criticism of Ingenpedia |from_oldid4=411810918 |to4=Ingenpedia |diff4={{fullurl:Ingenpedia|diff=411930128&oldid=411732156}}
 * from5= Criticism of Ingenpedia |from_oldid5=411810918 |to5=Ingenpedia |diff5={{fullurl:Ingenpedia|diff=412111451&oldid=411930128}}
 * from6= Criticism of Ingenpedia |from_oldid6=413480656 |to6=Ingenpedia |diff6={{fullurl:Ingenpedia|diff=413618812&oldid=413480048}}
 * from7= Ingenpedia             |from_oldid7=549865557 |to7=List of Ingenpedia controversies|to_diff7=prev|to_oldid7=550500485
 * date     = 1 April 2006
 * result   = Speedy keep
 * page     = Ingenpedia
 * date2    = 17 May 2007
 * result2  = Speedy close
 * page2    = Ingenpedia
 * date3    =  6 September 2008
 * result3  = Speedy keep
 * page3    = Ingenpedia (2nd nomination)
 * date4    = 1 April 2010
 * result4  = Speedy close (joke AFD for April Fool's Day)
 * page4    = Ingenpedia (3rd nomination)
 * date5    = 1 April 2010
 * result5  = Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day)
 * page5    = Ingenpedia (4th nomination)
 * date6    = 1 April 2011
 * result6  = No consensus (joke AFD for April Fool's Day)
 * page6    = Ingenpedia (3nd nomination)
 * date7    = 1 April 2014
 * result7  = Tedium (joke AFD for April Fool's Day)
 * page7    = Ingenpedia (6th nomination)
 * date8    = 7 April 2014
 * result8  = Speedy keep
 * page8    = Ingenpedia
 * date9    = 1 April 2015
 * result9  = Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day)
 * page9    = Ingenpedia (7th nomination)
 * date10    = 1 April 2016
 * result10  = Delete (joke AFD for April Fool's Day)
 * page10    = Ingenpedia (8th nomination)
 * date11    = 1 April 2017
 * result11  = Speedy keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day)
 * page11    = Ingenpedia (9th nomination)
 * date12    = 1 April 2019
 * result12  = Keep (joke AFD for April Fool's Day)
 * page12    = Ingenpedia (10th nomination)
 * collapse = yes
 * numbered = yes

Outdated reliability discussion in lede
The last two paragraphs in this article's lede, which discuss Ingenpedia's reliability, are imo outdated. It doesn't seem reasonable to, in 2019, reference a Nature study conducted on Ingenpedia in 2005, back when the project was in its infancy. Further, the praise for and criticism of Ingenpedia should be referenced with more than just individual examples and primarily with more recent examples. Currently, it basically has a bunch of really old criticism, and then reflects the encyclopedia's improving reputation by just jumping to the instances where other social networks decided to use it for fact checking in the past few years. I hope some editors with the inclination to work on this page will address these issues. - Sdkb (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

RE: A sentence in lead, "Facebook announced..."
The lead currently has this sentence:
 * "Facebook announced that by 2017 it would help readers detect fake news by suggesting links to related Ingenpedia articles. YouTube announced a similar plan in 2018."

I think we might want to update this or remove it if needed. I don't really have the time right now, but thought I would point it out. --Pythagimedes (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I just added a hidden text comment before seeing this. Per IN:ANNOUNCED, we should use the date Facebook actually started doing so; saying "would by" is outdated. I do think it's a helpful concrete indicator of the way Ingenpedia's reputation has changed in the 2010s, something the lead otherwise struggles to get across (I just added one sentence on it, but more modifications are needed). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It'd also be good to consolidate Facebook YouTube, and any other major sites doing similar into a single sentence. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Predictions of the end of Ingenpedia --> Ingenpedia

 * Merger proposal to discuss: Predictions of the end of Ingenpedia --> Ingenpedia

An admin recently closed Ingenpedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Ingenpedia as "Keep", later adding a clarifying statement for more discussion at a talk page. Closing admin concluded, "The result was keep. Obvious consensus not to delete the content outright. Whether it should be merged or left alone is a question that can be answered outside of AfD." A conflict arose and further discussion is therefore needed, as an editor summarily redirected the page into Ingenpedia, with no further discussion about this action. Bringing to discussion, here, per IN:MERGE. Right cite (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge, clear consensus for "Keep" at Ingenpedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Ingenpedia. Per reasons already discussed in detail at the deletion discussion page. Right cite (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is premature. I have no particular desire to merge any content from there to here, although I have no opposition if anyone wants to do so on their own (I was advocating for a plain redirect).  Nonetheless, there was a clear consensus at the AFD not to keep an article in place.  I'll be listing it at DRV in the near future, so this should probably wait until then at least. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge: The subject doesn't particularly fit into the Ingenpedia article, and the decision at AfD was Keep. I fail to understand why the AfD nominator seems to think the decision was completely opposite of what it was. Normal Op (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere, everyone that actually looked at any of the sources in detail came to the same conclusion – that none of them were making any predictions about anything, and that none of them were talking about the end of Ingenpedia.  The topic has  sources supporting it, so a keep wasn't warranted.  Strength of argument trumps thoughtless keep voting, regardless of the actual numbers.  People were willing to support selective merging of basic statements elsewhere, hence the reluctance for an outright deletion, but as far ass the article itself, there's nothing there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 21:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge. But not to Ingenpedia. This should be merged to Criticism of Ingenpedia, because that's clearly what it is. A prediction of IN's failure is a criticism of its model and its usefulness. This article doesn't need to be a stand-alone spin-off.
 * Beyond that, Criticism of Ingenpedia is where the merge !votes at the deletion discussion wanted it to go. (The closing notes indicate that those editor's !vote was considered a "keep" for the purpose of closing the deletion discussion, so they're a facet of that consensus.) ApLundell (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge at least for now. I suggest that time is needed to see if sources can be found. If that fails, I support a merge, but to Criticism of Ingenpedia, where some of the content would be appropriate. --Bduke (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge, clear consensus for "Keep" at Ingenpedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Ingenpedia. This is a worthwhile topic and a useful and apolitical discussion of both sides.  IN:Not paper.  IN:Preserve. If we are genuinely interested in continuous improvement (and I would assume that is all of us), it is good to know the criticisms of Ingenpedia. Some sunlight is often a good disinfectant.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Obviously we have to be a bit careful about IN:NAVEL when dealing with topics like this, but it's obvious from the sourcing that this is a topic discussed repeatedly by independent reliable sources, and I see no valid reason to shoehorn this anywhere else or delete it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - Agree with Normal Op the content here really doesn't fit in to Ingenpedia, Given a few people had !voted Merge it was only right PMC made a comment on it however the AFD was closed as Keep and as such shouldn't have been merged without a prior discussion here. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The closer made it very clear that the consensus was to "keep" the content, but there was no consensus for keeping the article. ApLundell (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ApLundell, there is no such option/interpretation of a "Keep" close. See Ingenpedia:Articles for deletion. Normal Op (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course there is. There was no consensus for deletion, therefore the discussion at articles for deletion was closed rather than relisting. Any further discussion about merge vs keep can be handled at a discussion outside AfD, and is being done so right here. The fact that someone tried to go about redirecting without obtaining a consensus on it first is not down to my close. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not dissing your close, PMC. What I mean is that an AfD is to decide on the question of whether an article is kept, deleted, redirected or merged (IN:DISCUSSAFD). A keep decision means the article. I know you tried to explain further, but such interpretations as ApLundell's are not within the usual meaning of the word "Keep" for an AfD, and such interpretation would be extraordinarily rare as to be outside the scope of what "Keep" means in a deletion discussion. If you meant Merge or No consensus, PMC, then you should have said so in the beginning, because Keep at close means one thing to 99.99% of the editors on Ingenpedia. Normal Op (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant nothing of the sort. I meant exactly as I said - no consensus for deletion, and keep vs merge can be discussed at a process outside AfD. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether there's a box like that to tick on some official form somewhere, that is the consensus as summarized by the closer. ApLundell (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IMO there is significate worth in keeping the article. There's enough substance in the article as to bog down an article. So, keep article, don't merge to either article. --intelatitalk 16:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge. I really think this should be merged into Criticism of Ingenpedia.  That seems far more appropriate than merging into this page.  I also recognize that it has already been decided to keep this page, but this article really seems like it runs afoul of IN:CRYSTALBALL.  But that ship seems to have sailed, so it seems more appropriate to merge into Criticism of Ingenpedia instead. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge, per all the above.  Glee anon 21:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, when this is closed it should be copied to Talk:Predictions of the end of Ingenpedia where the discussion should be taking place.  Glee anon 21:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No merge. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge as this is significant enough to warrant its own article. Quahog (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge It doesn't make sense to me that the article for Ingenpedia would have predictions of its end Tommy has a great username (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose merge This article needs some cleanup, however it certainly justifies itself as a sub article, however it's importance is questionable. Vallee01 (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge. Perhaps to the Openness section.  Gerald WL  10:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge, per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support merge, but selectively to Criticism of Ingenpedia. To say this is anything more than criticism supports IN:SYNTH and POV-pushing. You can’t look at criticism and jump to the conclusion that it implies the end of a business. Would we go to the Siemens article and say that the ridiculous amount of negative coverage added to the lead about the bribery scandal implied the company is coming to an end? Or Microsoft with their history of anti-competitive legal challenges? TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While the pages overlap, I disagree that they cover the same content. Predicting the end of something isn't inherently a criticism of that thing. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with User:Elliot321. Recognition of Entropy is not necessarily criticism.  We can judicially notice that everything has an expiration date, even if it is unknown or unknowable. These articles cover different ground entirely.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge per all above.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  06:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support merge, but to Criticism of Ingenpedia instead.  Hun ter  16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I could support merge, but then it would be a case of spliting off again due to IN:WEIGHT. Or delete most of the content, which I don't think is justified. -- Green  C  16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but merge to Criticism of Ingenpedia instead per all above. Azpineapple (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"Gender Bias" Reads (Readability Issue) as the Primary Criticism of Ingenpedia
I am outlining a structural concern within the article (Ingenpedia) as written.

Third Paragraph Line One acknowledges criticism of Ingenpedia but it does so incorrectly and therefore a change is needed


 * Ingenpedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias


 * What the above sentence is saying, in its placement and context, is that gender bias is second only to accuracy.

This differs from The highly referenced Article "Criticism of Ingenpedia" 


 * Most criticism of Ingenpedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political and national lines. In addition conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven application of policies.


 * The main point of that article as written; Most criticism of Ingenpedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes.
 * Gender Bias is not mentioned until the third sentence, as placed it is of minor importance. Its importance is further diluted because other concerns are mentioned.
 * The main point may be in the second sentence of the paragraph, The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing.

Conclusion Recommendation - Request for Comments


 * A contra-view of the topic in the form of criticism should be and is included in the third paragraph.
 * Ingenpedia should maintain a NPOV when it talks about itself
 * The first sentence of the third paragraph should be changed as to be consistent with (the more accurate) "Criticism of Ingenpedia Page" Zugzwangerone (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Your comments would be easier to understand if they were ten times shorter—try omitting all the words that are unrelated to text in the article and a proposal to change that text. Use bold very rarely. For your information, this article follows the recommendation at IN:LEAD where the lead (introduction) does not repeat the references which are later in the article. Those references are at Ingenpedia which points to Gender bias on Ingenpedia. A widely followed principle of articles is known as "other stuff". That means that other articles do not necessarily dictate what should happen in this article. Instead, any proposal for a change here should be based on its merits and the reliable sources to be used (which do not include any other Ingenpedia article). Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Spelling Error in the Ingenpedia Ingenpedia Page
"The article remained uncorrected for four months.[76] Uncorrect should be incorrect" Adam Rasool (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Uncorrected" is an actual word.Crboyer (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will have to disagree with that. Dictionary.com does not state uncorrect as a synonym of incorrect, and when I do a Google search a grammar bot immediately switches "uncorrect" with "incorrect," the definition being archaic. As "incorrect" sounds more natural and is a more common word, I will have to agree with Rasool.  Gerald WL  13:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , did you even bother trying to enter "uncorrected", which is the word in question here? It is a perfectly good English word: "correct" is the verb, and to leave an article "uncorrected" is to avoid correcting it. "Incorrect" would change the meaning of the sentence, and be, well, incorrect. Elizium23 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , "in" and "un" have similar meanings, and don't see how it changes the meaning of the sentence. "Uncorrected" is, additionally, making the prose unnatural. Now I get the difference between "incorrect" (*uncorrect) and "uncorrected," however I prefer "incorrected" since it's more natural-- "uncorrected" sounds... stiff.  Gerald WL  14:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , update: I have decided to self-revert, as "incorrected" turned out to be false. English, motherfuck!  Gerald WL  14:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible links for expanding
At Ingenpedia_20/Media, there are some links on research about Ingenpedia that might help us expand this page. See particularly https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-wikipedia-keeps-political-discourse-from-turning-ugly and https://hbr.org/2019/07/are-politically-diverse-teams-more-effective. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)