GASP! SUCH A THING EXISTS‽ Duecex2 00:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyway to search their content, as one might search through the Wikipedia articles themselves?
Edit: should have read about search options first...
What is a 'confessed contributor'? Notice I have 'stubbed' this term, so that if we continue to use it at the top of the Wikipedians page, people can find out what it means in the following:
"There are currently more than 700 confessed contributors (although there are over 10,000 user accounts and an unknown number of anonymous contributors)."
Is a 'confessed contributor' someone who responded to the following by assuming that the author intended them to modify this page to include a link to their user page, as in the following?:
"Here is a list of all the contributors who have put their name on this list."
Another comment which seems to share the 'implicitude' of the above is:
"There are no particular requirements for Wikipedians' personal pages; some people write up bios, some don't"
Does the above imply that those that don't are not one of the 700 confessed contributors but instead are one of the 10,000 'user accounts'? Is a mere 'user account' not really a 'True Wikipedian'?
I would like to see a 'How to become a Wikipedian' link (which explicitly demarcates Wikipedians and such 'perhaps not Wikipedians' as anonymous contributors or non-contributing 'regular lurkers') placed somewhere prominent, otherwise some may inevitably become suspicious that the term is some elitist notion retricted to an inner clique who(mistakenly?) treat the mere 'user accounts' as being viewed as some kind of 'riff-raff'.
--ericross
---
I understand that this page is listed as a Wikipedia entry, but I think it should still be linked to from at least "special pages" and certainly from "registered users". --John Knouse
I think this should be in the Wikipedia namespace and have a title suitable for a list instead of a plural article. For example: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians
In addition to the nationalities, how about Wikipedians/Queer, Wikipedians/Neopagan, etc.? — Montréalais
Sounds good to me. We could have Wikipedians organised by subcultural affiliation, and by religion. In that vein, I'd suggest making Wikipedians itself a fairly short page, with links to the different ways that we are organised (so far by country, by name, and by date of arrival). — Toby 18:37 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
I think that Lir, before being booted, made a good point about categorizing wikipedians into subcultural groups, even voluntarily. As you may or may not know, he started an "anti-american users" page, which was rapidly condemned by the community for inspiring an "us versus them" mentality. He (or she, I don't know) countered by saying that there is no reason queer or vegetarian wikipedians can have a page while anti-american ones cannot. That is a good point, and I hope everyone can see that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or discussion group or place to meet friends. There is no reason to organize wikipedians into categories at all. It only serves to create an "us versus them" mentality. An anti-american users page may might inflammatory, but what about the queer wikipedians page? Isn't that inflammatory to everyone who feels that homosexuality is wrong? Doesn't that create divisions that aren't necessary? And the vegetarians page too: the vast majority of vegetarians abstain from meat and animal by-products because they have a moral objection and consider it tantamount to murder. Thus, we can conclude that almost every person listed on that page considers me and every other meat-eater here a murderer or an accessory to murder, or at least someone with an underdeveloped moral sense. What I am trying to say is, all these groupings are pointless and detrimental to wikipedia. It doesn't matter what "sub-cultural affliations" any of us have. All that matters is that we all edit and write using a NPOV and providing correct information. If, however, everyone feels a burning need to have these divisions, then we should allow them all, not just ones that people approve of.--Anon
I agree with this (as has been done). I would also argue that divisions by country (and State within the US) are equally irrelevant to the encyclopædic purpose and should also go to meta. — Toby 18:13 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)
I have a mind to chop the A to Z list of Wikipedians into an alphabetized list in a similar manner to Wikipedia:Multiple-place names. I will not start for a few days (weeks) to allow others to comment/object/discuss. - Gaz - 14:36 02-Mar-2003 UTC
Could the list by alphabetical order be moved to another page ? the page is over 30k. Soon, it will suffer damage. Anthere
Why are United Kingdom *and* Scotland (but not En,Wa,NI) on there? I'm all for taking down the union jack (using the individual countries, not the union), but can we decide one way or another? --Steinsky 19:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to split the China listing to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Mainland China, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Hong Kong, etc. so Taiwanese Wikipedians dont have to pick a list or list twice. This eliminates the need to reveal one's POV. --Jiang 02:17, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Should I move "Puerto Rico" next to the United States listing, since Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the U.S. WhisperToMe 06:30, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make the Special:Listusers page a bit more navigable? Either by having an alphabetical index (a-z) or allowing the first couple of letters to be entered and jumped to? At the moment it is pretty useless due to the huge number of users. How, for example, could I browse users beginning with T without having to click 'next' many many times? -- HappyDog 14:15, 01 Dec 2003 (GMT)
why do certain users get gigantic fancy wikipedia space to put their retarded 'about me' pages? is this really appropriate for an encyclopedia? i dont think so.
Since Scotland has been added as a separate category from the UK I have added England as a separate category too. If the world cup thinks the countries are Scotland, England, Wales and NI separately then so should WikiPedia --(talk to)BozMo 20:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Does NPOV apply to stuff like this? someone removed the link to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World_Citizen citing NPOV over the head of a consensus on the VFD discussion for that page --Random|832 02:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there a list of Wikipedia articles about individual Wikipedians? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:23, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Why are all the countries listed on this page, yet all other listings have their sub-sections on a separate page? To keep with standardization, should we move all the country names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians by region and have a link that says "by region" like we do for the other listings? — Asbestos | Talk 08:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about making the list of Wikipedians by language? I made the list in Japanese. See ja:Wikipedia:言語別のウィキペディアン一覧. I think that it will be useful. Enirac Sum 17:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, really dont know where to ask this. Why aren't users in the sister wiki projects (WikiBooks, WikiQuotes, etc) shared with the Wikipedia? --Lacrymology 15:10:40, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
Noticed that an anon removed the link to Special:Listusers, after noting the large number of obscenities. So many of the names on the first page of it are essentially nothing than that, many of them being blocked for their username. Is there anything we can do about this? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I have been on WikiVacation for a while, so just started paying attention to this. As one or two folks above have said, the new "User in Location" scheme makes absolutely no sense to me. Most of the places I can contribute information about are not the place I live in right now. I would be okay with having a new categorization scheme for who's where, but to do away with a way of listing oneself by places one is interested in and has information to offer about makes, I said, no sense to me. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Dunno if this is the best place to discuss this, but the Australians are revolting! (you always knew that, of course) We aren't too happy about only having a category on pages, we would like to maintain a list ourselves. And so we shall. Just letting everyone know. We won't destroy the categories, we just want a seperate page to make it easier on everyone. The cat system is making it hard to communicate with others about meetups. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
How are people adding html meta tag information for certain wikipedia article? For example Bill Gates article comes with specified meta tag information like "Contains wealth of information about Bill Gates' life" How are people doing this, is it in the edit page section or done in a different way like in the background or something? Google Bill gates and see the link with bill gates on wikipedia, you'll know what I'm talking about. Thanks!
67.190.113.165 08:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Minor note: referring to the Wikipedia community as an ant colony is just asking people to make fun of us. Jobarts-Talk 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Surprisingly many people haven't heard of Wikipedia! I can't contribute much because I am only in highschool but I know a lot of adults who are professionals, I was wondering whether there is somekind of formal e-mail invitation to be a wikipedian that I can give them. Is there? Or do I have to tell them about Wikipedia? If there isn't there should be something like "You have been invited to be a Wikipedian" or something like that. 24.43.51.199 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain why there is a picture of Racine on this page? Does he have some relation to Wikipedians, or is it just for an example of writer/intellectual? -Hellycopper 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, does anybody know if there are Serverproblems again? I can`t save my edits in other wikis...and i think the other user can`t do this either, so i can`t ask anybody there...--212.7.174.107 11:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
In the "Listing by region" category, why "Wikipedians in Kosovo" does not exist? Aeternus 14:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Meta site [1] is covered up by the box for me. I do not see an obvious fix for this. I'm using Firefox 1.0.6 on OpenBSD 3.8. I don't know if this is the right place to say so or if there's someplace else I should report it, but there you go. Armedblowfish 03:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
A silly little thing, but - well, you could call this sort of fascination with minutiae very wikipedestrian; anyway - anybody else prefer Homo wikipediens sysopus / bureaucratus / userus rather than Homo wikipediens sysopous / bureaucratous / userous? Is there any reason to prefer one or the other as more "correct" (and I use the term loosely)? PatrickFisher 07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"-US" all the way. Arthurian Legend 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Have these two ranks been destroyed? KFan II 14:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The Monolith Deathcult article I created should be kept it was a good start on it. It also had good information at least review the article. Metal Maiden 22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this is my problem or a problem with the article, but the box of "info" is covering up some of the text. WikiSlasher 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article qualifies as nonesense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaingy (talk • contribs)
Hi ya this still has not been fixed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letumbillon (talk • contribs)
Should this article be labeled as "are not intended, nor should they be used, for any research or serious use." becuase of the comical and unture content similar to uncyclopedia? --Richman271Hello 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been seeing some of my friends on wiki getting repeatedly vandalised, on a daily bases. I've come up with a good idea: How about we ban the Wikipedians user page from being edited except for the user himself/herself or by permission of the wikipedian. (I once asked a user from Homestar Runner Wiki to help me clean up my userboxes, but i gave him permission to do so)
What do you think?
Pece Kocovski 03:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've had several users come and fix up my bad grammar on my userpage. Conversely, I've been asked for help with userpage formatting issues and I went to other user's pages and fixed up their userboxes for them.--God Ω War 04:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I truly commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia for surpassing the two million (or in figures: 2,000,000) mark of the Wikipedian Population!!! Yet the number of registered user accounts of this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on contributing! Yaaahooooo!!! --onWheeZierPLot 08:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I wish this would be more user friendly, we desperatly need more detailed info on users. On that note, we desperatly need help with meta:General User Survey.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Claiming the number of Wikipedians is equal to the number of accounts opened is totally bogus. Who knows how many meaningless, duplicate, virtually unused, and inactive accounts that includes? At the very least, something like {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} should be defined. Even if the bar is as low as something like "at least one article edit within the past year," that count would at least have some sort of credibility. Rfrisbietalk 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
True, it is is standard to count total accounts, but it is also standard to suspend accounts after a period of disuse, unlike Wikipedia. - Chochi 81.190.235.12 12:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This new user needs some SERIOUS help when it comes to everything. Please, edit his pages as you wish. He just decided to put a link to an image searched online. Suspect future vandal. --DrZeus 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a growth rate on a number of Wikipedians that come here each day? PrestonH September 26th, 2006
I'm new here, and when i was going other users talk pages, i noticed that they had welcome messages on their talk pages . . . why didn't i get one yet? ScreamAtMe 23:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "sysopous" and the "bureaucratous" be "sub-sub-species," since they technically are users? bibliomaniac15 Review? 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I have an argument with a user who acused me of being un-heterosexual,plus his comments are greatly homophobic (see:":::Homosexual behavior is activity by persons who have not developed beyond the stage of adolescence. At physical and mental maturity, usually around the age of 24 years, humans are normally heterosexual.Lestrade 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade").Should I do something about this comment?(I think I should,homophobia I belive is not welcome to an online encyclopedia,so I belive someone should do something,I just wanted to ask to make sure I wouldnt act hastily".
Again another Wikipedian statistical phenomenon has arrived! However, vandalisms and inactive users aside. First off for mine second compliment and perhaps the third for this Wikipedia itself, I truly praise, commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia once again for surpassing yet anoher Wiki-record of the Three Million (or in figures: 3,000,000) mark of the Wikipedian Population!!! Yet this whopping number of registered user accounts of this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on contributing! Yaaahooooo!!! --onWheeZierPLot 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem about the biological classification of H. Wikipedian in the article, from a scientific perspective. This joke is clearly not funny, and I do not think that it fits in with the article. In my oppinion the article should be rewritten to focus more on the facts about wikipedians and include usefull links and to make the article conform with the value of the encyclopedia as a whole. What are your thoughts on all of this?--169.232.125.176 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The joke is funny, but is not meant to be informational, so I think that the {{humor}} template should be added.
Also: Homo Wikipediens Nerdous should be Homo wikipediens nerdous and h.w.sysopous = ?? Only hovering over the link suggests administrators. Should be h.w.administratus or sim. Jake95 17:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
please get rid of the biological and conservation classification in this article. It makes the article, and wikipedia in general, seem so amateurish...and the picture doesn't help either.
Or Homo Sapiens Sapiens Wikipediens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tramp (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is this page joking like Uncyclopedia!? It states that Wikipedians is A SPECIES!! --Edmundkh 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you people happy? We're special, after all.
I'm just going to say my peace: the image that's in there right now is extremely childish and not very encyclopedic. Quadzilla99 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
...serious business. --Spamwise 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community redirects here, but I wonder if that is good. Actually, it has been stated that "the community" does not necessarily equal the group of wikipedia users. That is one of the possible meanings of "the community", but not the only ones. For instance, there are developers that are not really wikipedians. I am not sure what we should do about that redirect though - delete it? // habj 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The biological information bar is kinds funny, but who says that Wikipedians are human? I'm sure some are, but what about ANNAfoxlover, who's a red fox, and Wwwwolf, who's a grey wolf, and Alphachimp, who's an orangutan? And can someone fix the picture, please? Thank you. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Why do the sysop, bureaucrat, and nerd subspecies of wikipedians have a cross beside it? Doesn't the cross indicate they are extinct? Also, shouldn't the subspecies of stewards, checkusers, oversights, developers, boardvotes, and foundation members be also included as rare subspecies? Should it be fixed? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
a made-up creature should not have a kingdom,phylum,class,order,family,genus or species — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.24.38 (talk • contribs)
It's intended to be humorous. If a made up creature can be on wikipedia, so can it's arbitrary classification. At least that's the way I see it.--Munkel (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Wikipedians are not elephants, as far as I know, so what does this have to do with Stephen Colbert?! Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Some wacko did that Anubiz 01:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Recently I noticed that the image column have been vandalised for a few times by placing inappropriate image. Can you people please stop this joke!!?? It's NOT funny at all!!!!--Edmundkh 10:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the picture of Wikipe-tan in the library? Who put that stupid "bug thing" back.—Joe Jacard (Talk-Desk) 03:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Added several additions to the scientific classification.Tyg13 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a huge problem. I recently checked my user talk page for the last edit, which was mine: [2], and I got this edit: [3]. It says I have 38 intermediate revisions. But that's not the problem. I clicked on "Older edit," and it takes me to this page: [4]. One more time and I get here: [5]. I click on "Newer edit" and I get back to that last one, but when I click on "Newer edit" again, I get sent here: [6]. Somehow, I got trapped in Wikipedia:Wikipedians, and the same thing happens no matter which page's history I look at. So I think there is some sort of virus on Wikipedia that brings users to this article. ––Ksy92003(talk) 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I had an account but I forgot to log in! :P Astristul 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Again another Wikipedian statistical phenomenon has arrived! However, vandalisms and inactive users aside. First off for mine forth compliment and perhaps the fifth for this Wikipedia itself, I truly praise, commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia once again for surpassing yet anoher Wiki-record of the Five Million (or in figures: 5,000,000) mark of the Wikipedian Population!!! Yet this whopping number of registered user accounts of this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on contributing! Yaaahooooo!!! 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
