Le service Wikipedia est-il en panne ? Vérifiez les problèmes, le statut et les pannes actuelles

Publications Reddit - Wikipedia

Score: 224 | Commentaires: 50

This has always been a problem with smaller Wikipedia pages. I remember there being a page where most of the information came from a random blog which obviously was just pseudoscientific ramblings. The good thing about Wikipedia is that you can edit it if you think there’s something wrong.
I’ve noticed this, too. A few years back, I had to completely rewrite the article about the New Mexico State Penitentiary riot because it was so incomprehensible—whole sections of it were written in literal prose, like a book, and it was filled with un-cited claims and wild speculation. Another article about a (well-known!) Byzantine empress had the wrong religion in the infobox for months before I fixed it. My new nemesis lately is the Traditional Monarchy article, which is filled with grammatical errors and unnecessary quotes (among other issues). I try to fix problems when I see them, but there are so many issues that I just don’t have the time. Relatedly, I’ve noticed that a lot of the more questionable articles are about extremely niche and obscure subjects, and they’re usually written by one or two people who basically control the whole page since no one else knows about it. Those one or two people are sometimes very resistant to anyone else rewording their contributions, removing dubious information, or even making grammar/spelling corrections, so any attempts to clean up the page get reverted or undone immediately. And there are obviously systems in place to deal with that kind of thing, but most casual editors aren’t going to utilize them—they’ll just be annoyed and move on, because they don’t have the energy/time/etc.
>Is Wikipedia declining in its professionalism? (...) To start, let me explain the page "onna-musha" The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onna-musha was created in 2006 so if it is an hoax then it can not support that Wikipedia is currently declining in professionalism. Maybe you had the wrong idea that Wikipedia content became perfect a few years ago: this is not the case and will likely never be. By the way: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Japanese_women_in_warfare * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Onna-musha >The Japanese Wikipedia only has a page for onna-bushou and it has no language alternatives linked to take the user to the other pages I suggest you to ask in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat if * Q4334946 * Q124483503 must be merged.
I find it easy to agree with you. I have definitely come across multiple pages in which the language is prose or riddled with inference, rather than the tone Wikipedia has arrived to maintain in the past. But I've noticed that part of the issue is scope. Wikipedia has grown immensely and it's now difficult to police the whole thing. Small, obscure pages are at risk of vandalism and poor content or edits. Coupled with individuals who are proud of their (poor) contributions and will revert any edits made to them. I analogise the whole thing to the late Roman empire, where the frayed outer edges were often uncontrolled and where individuals supposedly working with the empire would take rule over here or there without being addressed by Ceasar. The issue is, just like the Roman empire, policing each and every outlying page becomes impossible and attempting to do so quickly risks destabilizing the whole thing. My advice is: Make changes where they are appropriate yourself, report individuals who are reverting true improvements (or at least highlight their mistakes in discussion) and help ensure the core of Wikipedia is supported.

Score: 0 | Commentaires: 26

Do you think so? Now there's the visual editor that really helps. And even the the wikicode isn't too complicated. [[ ]] For links and that's pretty much the main thing
You would have straight up ragequit circa 2006.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor
This all sounds like you need some basic computer education. Wikipedia itself has [some tutorials on editing it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction) including using the visual editor which hides all those code for people like you. Wikipedia is simple, I can program and its far simpler than any programming I have ever done. Its simpler than shell scripting, C++, even php/html pages. >requires html codes I once wrote a single 8.5x11 page with some codes for a person as an introduction to html, took about half and hour. They took that page and got a job as a html designer. If you are having problems with a rudimentary markup language the problem isnt Wikipedia. > Wikipedia should be user friendly like most other websites. What other we sites are you editing that are easier? Most require knowledge of php, python, java, sql statements, as well as html and css. Wikipedia is a joke as far as difficulty. The only problems are when you go to try and edit complex tables.

Le statut actuel de Wikipedia est OPERATIONNEL

Aucun rapport indiquant que Wikipedia est en panne ou rencontre des problèmes de statut au cours des dernières 24 heures.

Si vous rencontrez des problèmes, veuillez les signaler !

Comment ça fonctionne ?

Statistiques de temps d'arrêt en temps réel pour Wikipedia au cours des dernières 24 heures

Carte des pannes en direct

Liens officiels pour Wikipedia

Rapports des utilisateurs

Derniers rapports

Discutez de l'état actuel de Wikipedia

Lisez-en plus sur Wikipedia

FAQ - Wikipedia

Publications Reddit - Wikipedia

Is Wikipedia declining in its professionalism?

Quantum supremacy is the goal of demonstrating that a programmable quantum computer can solve a problem that no classical computer can solve in any feasible amount of time, irrespective of the usefulness of the problem.

Wikipedia is hard to use without computer programming skills.