Hello, and welcome! Wiktionary is a multiple-language (multilingual) free dictionary and thesaurus, being written collaboratively on this website. Entries are edited by anyone—records of changes are kept. We have created 330,641 articles since starting in December, 2002, and we're growing rapidly.
Ordinary people like you are very active in building this project. While you are reading this, it is likely someone is editing some entry. Already at work have been many knowledgeable people, but everybody is welcome! Contributing does not require logging in, but we'd like you to, as it facilitates the administration of this site. You can dive right in and add to, fix or create any page you like. If it pleases you, we invite you to drop in as often as you can! You can be bold, and even should be, in updating pages. You might like the "Recent Changes" page. Above all, play nice.
One of the most important things you should know is that we have borrowed from our sister project Wikipedia some cultural norms you should respect: We try not to argue pointlessly. This isn't a debate forum. After civilized and reasonable discussion, we try to reach broad consensus about what an entry should be in order to present an accurate, neutral summary of all relevant facts for future readers. We try to make the entries as unbiased as we can, meaning that definitions or descriptions, even of controversial topics, are not meant to be platforms for preaching of any kind. Bear in mind this is a dictionary, which means there are many things it is not. At any point, if you are uncomfortable changing someone else's work, and you want to add a thought (or question or comment) about an entry or other page, the place is its talk page (click on the "discussion" tab at the top or the "Discuss this page" link in the sidebar or elsewhere, depending on your preference skin). Though again, generally, we try to avoid discussion for its own sake. You can find out more about our community norms in the links listed below.
You might expect Wiktionary to be a low-quality product because it is open for everybody to edit. But, perhaps the fact it is open to everyone creates the potential for making a lot of these definitions pretty good, and ever-improving. To use a now-famous catchphrase in essence: “Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow. ” We tend to cater to the highest. "Lower common denominators" tend politely not to touch articles they know nothing about! We hope you have fun.
More, introductory information is on the following pages:
Monday, February 12, 2007
Technical
Wikipedia uses the MediaWiki software. It's an open-source program that is used on all Wikimedia projects, and is also widely used on other third party websites on the internet. The hardware supporting the various projects is based on almost 100 servers hosted in various hosting centers around the world. Full descriptions of the various servers are available on this meta page. For technical information about Wikipedia, you can check Technical FAQs.
Editorial quality review
As well as systems to catch and control substandard and vandalistic edits, Wikipedia also has a full style and content manual, and a variety of positive systems for continual article review and improvement. Examples of the processes involved include peer review, good article assessment, and featured articles, a rigorous review of articles which are desired to meet the highest standards and showcase Wikipedia's capability to produce high quality work.
In addition, specific types of article or fields often have their own specialized and comprehensive projects, assessment processes (such as biographical article assessment), and expert reviewers within specific subjects. Nominated articles are also frequently the subject of specific focus under projects such as the Neutrality Project or covered under editorial drives by groups such as the Cleanup Taskforce.
In addition, specific types of article or fields often have their own specialized and comprehensive projects, assessment processes (such as biographical article assessment), and expert reviewers within specific subjects. Nominated articles are also frequently the subject of specific focus under projects such as the Neutrality Project or covered under editorial drives by groups such as the Cleanup Taskforce.
Handling disputes and abuse
Main articles: Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Sock puppet, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Wikipedia has a rich span of methods to handle most abuses which commonly arise, which are well tested and should be relied upon.
Intentional vandalism can be reported and corrected by anyone.
Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach or validity of content, can be addressed through the talk page of an article, through requesting comments from other editors or through Wikipedia's comprehensive dispute resolution process.
Abuse of user accounts, such as the creation of Internet sock puppets or solicitation of friends and other parties to enforce a non-neutral viewpoint or inappropriate consensus within a discussion, or to disrupt other Wikipedia processes in an annoying manner, are addressed through the sock puppet policy.
In addition, brand new users (until they have established themselves a bit) may at the start find that their votes are given less weight by editors in some informal polls, in order to prevent abuse of single purpose accounts.
Wikipedia has a rich span of methods to handle most abuses which commonly arise, which are well tested and should be relied upon.
Intentional vandalism can be reported and corrected by anyone.
Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach or validity of content, can be addressed through the talk page of an article, through requesting comments from other editors or through Wikipedia's comprehensive dispute resolution process.
Abuse of user accounts, such as the creation of Internet sock puppets or solicitation of friends and other parties to enforce a non-neutral viewpoint or inappropriate consensus within a discussion, or to disrupt other Wikipedia processes in an annoying manner, are addressed through the sock puppet policy.
In addition, brand new users (until they have established themselves a bit) may at the start find that their votes are given less weight by editors in some informal polls, in order to prevent abuse of single purpose accounts.
Editorial administration, oversight and management
Main article: Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control
The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role they may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others request, watching current edits for vandalism, or watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who find that editorial administrator responsibility would benefit their ability to help the community may ask their peers in the community for agreement to undertake such roles; a structure which enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. At present around a 75-80% approval rating after enquiry, is considered the requirement for such a role, a standard which tends to ensure a high level of experience, trust and familiarity across a broad front of projects within Wikipedia.
A variety of software assisted systems and automated programs help several hundred editors to watch for problematic edits and editors. An arbitration committee sits at the top of all editorial and editor conduct disputes,[4] and its members are elected in three regularly rotated tranches by an established enquiry and decision making process in which all regular editors can equally participate.
The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role they may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others request, watching current edits for vandalism, or watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who find that editorial administrator responsibility would benefit their ability to help the community may ask their peers in the community for agreement to undertake such roles; a structure which enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. At present around a 75-80% approval rating after enquiry, is considered the requirement for such a role, a standard which tends to ensure a high level of experience, trust and familiarity across a broad front of projects within Wikipedia.
A variety of software assisted systems and automated programs help several hundred editors to watch for problematic edits and editors. An arbitration committee sits at the top of all editorial and editor conduct disputes,[4] and its members are elected in three regularly rotated tranches by an established enquiry and decision making process in which all regular editors can equally participate.
Wikipedia content criteria
Main article: Wikipedia:Wikipedia in nine words
Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited.
The appropriate policies and guidelines for these are found at:
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia's core approach, neutral unbiased article writing.
Wikipedia:No original research what is, and is not, valid information
Wikipedia:Verifiability what counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified
Wikipedia:Citing sources sources should be cited, and the manner of doing so.
These can be abbreviated to WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:CITE respectively.
Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited.
The appropriate policies and guidelines for these are found at:
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia's core approach, neutral unbiased article writing.
Wikipedia:No original research what is, and is not, valid information
Wikipedia:Verifiability what counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified
Wikipedia:Citing sources sources should be cited, and the manner of doing so.
These can be abbreviated to WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:CITE respectively.
Editing Wikipedia pages
Main article, including list of common mark-up shortcuts: Wikipedia:How to edit a page
Wikipedia uses a simple yet powerful page layout to allow editors to concentrate on adding material rather than page design. These include automatic sections and subsections, automatic references and cross-references, image and table inclusion, indented and listed text, links ISBNs and math, as well as usual formatting elements and most world alphabets and common symbols. Most of these have simple formats that are deliberately very easy and intuitive.
Wikipedia has robust version and reversion controls. This means that poor quality edits or vandalism can quickly and easily be reversed or brought up to an appropriate standard by any other editors, so inexperienced editors cannot accidentally do permanent harm if they make a mistake in their editing. As there are many more editors intent upon good quality articles than any other kind, articles that are poorly edited are usually corrected rapidly.
Wikipedia uses a simple yet powerful page layout to allow editors to concentrate on adding material rather than page design. These include automatic sections and subsections, automatic references and cross-references, image and table inclusion, indented and listed text, links ISBNs and math, as well as usual formatting elements and most world alphabets and common symbols. Most of these have simple formats that are deliberately very easy and intuitive.
Wikipedia has robust version and reversion controls. This means that poor quality edits or vandalism can quickly and easily be reversed or brought up to an appropriate standard by any other editors, so inexperienced editors cannot accidentally do permanent harm if they make a mistake in their editing. As there are many more editors intent upon good quality articles than any other kind, articles that are poorly edited are usually corrected rapidly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)