This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia Help Top‑importance This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp Top This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Wikipedia is an online free content encyclopedia project helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."

Hmm, sounds like a load of marketing wank and not the introduction to a worthwhile encyclopedia article. MinorProphet (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested this revision—which seems a bit more accurate, fixes a bit of punctuation ("free-content" is an adjective here), and may be sufficiently less vainglorious (😉) :

Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access knowledge.

– AndyFielding (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the uncyclopedia's motto? Deven McEwen (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page Wikipedia:About is not an encyclopedia article. Note the prefix Wikipedia: in the page's name – it's a page in the project namespace. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at the idea lab at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Redesigning_the_About_page. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion is now archived, not sure where else to post this. The new version is (bluntly) a miserable shadow of its former self. While the former had visually interesting media and statistical information, the new version is just a boring plain wall of text and links. I honestly initially took the changes for vandalism given how awkwardly the page ends. Given the size and radical effect of the change, I'd recommend a RfC. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been at the bottom of the page for awhile. I don't know why it says "bugs", and how are they shallow. I may be missing something in thinking this is a good Zen mind twister but has no other meaning (generational gap? is it a meme?). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, this phrase is Linus's law. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrybak, first I've heard of that. It seems a little inside-baseball to act as the "big finish" of the Wikipedia:About article, and I'd guess it tends to confuse more than just me if someone doesn't know the term. Still seems a slightly confusing way of ending the introduction of the site to newcomers. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, computer people will know its meaning and recognize the term, so I'm just reacting as a non-computer savvy user. Thanks again for the education. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went to add a wisdom of the crowd link to further explain the point of the Linus's law quote and ended up editing and reordering the last paragraph for concept flow and brevity, and then put in a paragraph break. Seems to work. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The version is true for the period 2001-19. In 2019, however, it was resolved that all active porn actors will be gradually eliminated from Wikipedia claiming insufficient notability. Thus, one "branch of knowledge" is blocked, the branch accounting for half of internet traffic.

Since 2019, Wikipedia's purpose is usually "to satisfy" and sometimes to frustrate curious minds by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on many branches of knowledge and avoids information on selected branches. The opening citation should be adjusted too, as much changed since Sanger said it:

--Maxaxa (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxaxax Could you clarify your position on the issue further? CactiStaccingCrane 14:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2019, there is at least one branch of knowledge de facto censored from Wikipedia - active porn actors. Officially, they fail notability; in practice, the notability is made high enough for total deletion of porn actors who rose to prominence ever since.

The issue passed long discussion and request for comment and the arbitration request was speedy declined. Since 2019, Wikipedia factually has a new policy - no longer all branches of knowledge. I think this page must be adjusted to the new policy. Maxaxa (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxaxax I think you you go to the WP:Village pump and discuss about the issue, which I think it is far more effective than trying to make a WP:POINTY proposal at this page. I think more people will listen to you if you raise your complaints in a more respectful manner. CactiStaccingCrane 00:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter how many people would listen, this policy is from above and it disregarded many counter-arguments by other people. It would be more respectful if Wikipedia honestly announced changes in its policy and adjusted related pages instead of abusing the rules of notability. Maxaxa (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of mistake I have done from my side. Please explain Rahulsoman (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulsoman you are not blocked, and if you do have a block message it surely shouldn't be pointing you to this talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added the pillars as bullet points, but I marked the edit as minor in error, so I've reverted my own edit and removed them. I think that I should have asked here before adding them. Should the pillars be added as bullet points? Random56653 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the bullet points and was unsure about keeping them. Since the five pillars page is already linked it seems too much duplication as some of the points they make are already covered in this short pages' text. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it 16 months and a couple of days to the 25th anniversary - when will the planning for the celebrations start?

Is it known how many of the earliest users are still around, and likely figures for numbers (which will only ever be a fraction of the 20 year members and likewise down the 15, 10 and 5 year participants levels for a variety of reasons - including persons shifting partially or wholly to elsewhere in the Wikiverse) - and at what point will the Wikipedia equivalent to List of longest-reigning monarchs become viable? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]