Talk:Wikipedia

Please do not use this page for anything except discussion of the Wiktionary entry about the encyclopedia.

Context of the Financial Times quotations
It appears to me that the quotation "Work in the open-source software community or contribute to wikipedias on your favourite subjects." could be better ascribed to the second meaning - A version of this encyclopedia in a particular language. I don't know the context of this sentence (if it is a sentence), but the term wikipedia is used in plural so it seems only logical. Regards, Biblbroks 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Rfv-sense: transitive. The quotes provided are only for the intransitive sense. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * RFV failed, sense removed. More or less. The distinction between the senses wasn't really "transitive" vs. "intransitive", but rather "editing" vs. "consulting". I did find one cite where it meant "editing", and I've put that on the citations page; but funnily enough, it's intransitive. (And it's actually kind of using "Wikipediaing" as a noun.) —Ruakh TALK 02:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipeded"
I've added this sense of "wikipedia" as a verb:


 * To be written or written up in Wikipedia.
 * 2010 Edmund Morris, Colonel Roosevelt (New York: Random House, 2010), 567:
 * Flora Whitney died in 1986, inevitably wikipeded as a "wealthy socialite."

As it is included in a major biography of a major personage by a major author, in print, I figured it should make it onto Wiktionary. However, I must admit that though I love etymology and lexicography as a layman, grammar etc. befuddles me, so please feel free to fix my addition. Tuckerresearch 04:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've removed this because wikipeded: isn't an inflection of this verb, i.e. it's not the same word. You might want to consider adding a new entry at wikipeded:, but since it only seems to occur in the one book I doubt it would meet our WT:CFI criteria. Equinox ◑ 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It's another meaning and another possible past-tense form of "to wikipedia" - how is that "not the same word"? Tuckerresearch 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Explain how this is a past tense of Wikipedia? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

See the quotation above. As I said, another meaning. I defer to regular Wiktionarians, but I thought it should go somewhere in Wiktionary. I would've thought you guys were descriptive, not prescriptive. Tuckerresearch 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad example?
Proper noun entry: Wikipedia (plural Wikipedias). Isn't the example in that section a contradiction ("wikipedias" vs. "Wikipedias"): "Work in the open-source software community or contribute to wikipedias on your favourite subjects."? --Mortense 17:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good observation. It might go to the Noun entry - with some changes regarding capital letter. Regards, --Biblbroks 17:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia
RFD proper noun sense: An open-content online encyclopedia conglomerate.

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, how it would differ from the first sense. DAVilla 16:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree; the wording as at best ambiguous and it seems to just mean the same as the first sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the first sense only refers to the sense of Wikipedia solely as an encyclopedia, afaict. The sense i added was an attempt to address that somewhat newly apprehended meaning of the term Wikipedia - as not merely an encyclopedia - but as a project to build one and all that surrounds it. I understand that the wording is not most fortunate, and it could be improved of course. Perhaps it could be useful if the history regarding this edit of mine and my talk page regarding this entry, is examined. Maybe even my contribution at article_in_question's discussion page could help to illustrate my point. What i am trying to state is that it appears that User:EncycloPetey didn't object to my second addition of the third sense, and that then perhaps this change was somewhat understood and therefore accepted. Regards, --Biblbroks 08:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright; keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussions: May 2011–February 2012
Rfv noun sense: (figuratively) A source of abundant encyclopedic knowledge; a modern encyclopedia.

The only quotation given seems to be using Wikipedia in a metaphorical sense, but semantically still refers to the Wikimedia project. DAVilla 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It refers to the Wikimedia project, but not semantically I think. Because if it is a metaphor, then I'd say the entry is correct to a point: an encyclopedia in general - without the qualifier modern. --Biblbroks 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually if its sense is metaphorical, than only the first description would fit appropriately: a source of abundant encyclopedic knowledge. --Biblbroks 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, see below. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Proper noun
Rfv-sense X 2:
 * 1. (trademark) An open-content online encyclopedia, collaboratively developed over the World Wide Web.
 * 2. [not challenged] (Wiktionary and WMF jargon) A version of this encyclopedia in a particular language.
 * 3. A heterogeneity which encompasses this encyclopedia in its many language versions, the community that develops it and the process of its development.

We have three citations for the proper noun on the citations page. It is unclear what sense they might support. I would bet on them covering the sense not challenged. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it is obvious that the second sense depends on the first, at least syntactically. But the second citaations given:
 * ''*2006, Cindy Long, "Getting WIKI With It", NEAToday 25 (2): 40 (October)
 * It’s because of this open editing feature that Wikipedia draws praise, criticism, and, at times, vandals.''
 * has an interesting part - mention of vandals. So if one thinks of encyclopedia as a product of development (as the first sense suggest that this encyclopedia is), that one might ask where do those vandals come into "equation". For example in the FOSS community when a project is developed, I don't think that there are deliberate vandals, or even accidental for that matter. Of course, I may be mistaken, but even so a project is in my opinion interpreted differently than a product of development. Anyway if vandals are considered then maybe the second sense given would work, since in the part "a version of..." one could imagine that attraction of vandals is possible in some other version. But I may be completely mistaken, since the FOSS arguments I presented are from a person without much experience in that FOSS area. Anyway, your bet, DCDuring, might be profitable, but I wouldn't take much chance on it. ;-) Regards, --Biblbroks 11:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am simply interested in getting citations for the definitions given or for definitions that reflect actual usage. Much of what you say would be relevant to the word wiki, though most people seem to have exposure to wikis only through Wikipedia and seem to often confuse the general approach with Wikipedia specifically. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if my question appears as one by an ignorant person, but I will nevertheless ask it: can Wikipedia itself serve as a source of citation? That is two of the WP five pillars' ledes give:
 * from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not there's "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect."
 * from Wikipedia:Civility there's "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and is one of Wikipedia's five pillars." and "It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."
 * Regards, --Biblbroks 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No we don't allow citations from Wikimedia projects as they are 'not independent'. It would be a bit like me creating an entry, having it challenged and using it on my blog so as to show it exists. That's the sort of 'not independent' I mean. Some say that Wikipedia isn't durably archived, but I'm pretty damn sure it is. I consider 'durably archived' more of a buzzword than a term with any actual meaning. But I digress, that really isn't on topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment - I don't find it that digressive. I understand that it may be interpreted as such - I don't interpret it, though - but informative (to me). Anyway, sorry for _that_ digression. What I wanted is to ask if we find the citations from another Wikimedia project not dependent - 'not dependent' as in not created or used for the first time by the same user - then in that case we could allow such a citation, couldn't we? Because, although it might pose a danger of being dependent, it wouldn't be the same as in the described situation. Right? Regards, --Biblbroks 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Sense 3, "A heterogeneity which encompasses the Wikipedia encyclopedia in its many language versions and the process of its development." It's not a very clear definition, but as far I can see, this is redundant to sense one. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: that sense and some others were already nominated at RFV back in 2011. The discussions were marked as "failed", but for some reason none of the nominated senses were removed. — Keφr 18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That means we can speedy it, right? --WikiTiki89 20:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that definition #3 is the perverted child of definitions #1 and #2, both of which are attestable, accurate, and should be kept. Pur ple back pack 89  20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, definition #2 split out of definition #3: . I constructed the definition in question while trying to incorporate the meaning of Wikipedia as a project (the encyclopedia, the community and its rules). Delete --biblbroksдискашн 21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 21:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Japanese romaji
Is it also the romaji of ウィキペディア? -- 223.75.12.217 14:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2016–March 2017
Rfv-sense: "A main-belt asteroid (No. 274301)." – Einstein2 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of references in the pedia article . SemperBlotto (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this is in doubt. Can Einstein2 explain what the concern concern is? It's in the JPL small-body database Spinning Spark  16:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In printed sources there is International Journal of e-Collaboration. It also appears in this university course. Spinning Spark  17:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RFV passed. Also removing "neologism" label.__Gamren (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Italian pronunciation paragraph isn't totally correct
The Italian pronunciations listed in here list the wrong vowel quality (/e/, "é", instead of /ɛ/, "è") and don't even report the one pronunciation considered the most correct by some linguists, included Claudio Marazzini, president of the Accademia della Crusca, and even by the Italian Wikipedia itself.

These are the pronunciation given by the DiPI ("Dizionario di pronuncia italiana", "Dictionary of Italian pronunciation"), which reports the pronunciations in use:

wikiˈpɛdja, -ˈpi-, ↑-peˈdia

So this is the piece of code that should substitute the current one:

5.171.202.151 09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)