Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Wikipedia. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Wikipedia, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Wikipedia in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Wikipedia you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Wikipedia will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Wikipedia, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Please do not use this page for anything except discussion of the Wiktionary entry about the encyclopedia.
Context of the Financial Times quotations
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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, Biblbroks00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
RFV discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence. Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
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.) —RuakhTALK02:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Wikipeded"
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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. Tuckerresearch00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Bad example?
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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."? --Mortense17:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
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, --Biblbroks08:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence. Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
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. DAVilla16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
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. --Biblbroks20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually if its sense is metaphorical, than only the first description would fit appropriately: a source of abundant encyclopedic knowledge. --Biblbroks20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence. Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
1. (trademark) An open-content online encyclopedia, collaboratively developed over the World Wide Web.
2. (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. DCDuringTALK23:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
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, --Biblbroks11:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
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. DCDuringTALK12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
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."
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)Reply
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, --Biblbroks16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
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)Reply
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. — Keφr18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Actually, definition #2 split out of definition #3: diff. 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 --biblbroksдискашн21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
The Italian pronunciation paragraph isn't totally correct
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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: