I'll offer up just a couple of each:

Best:

• It's endless fascinating reading. I've spent hours at a time getting lost down rabbit holes, finding one interesting, informative, and/or just plain weird article after another. Wikipedia has revived my lifelong love of learning.
• It has a very low tolerance for bullshit. There is little or no slack given for pseudoscience, misinformation, disinformation, urban legends, quackery, or miscellaneous stupidity. Everything has to have a strong citation (or at least it's supposed to) before being allowed to be stated as fact. Wikipedia overall is quite a reliable source of information, though it should be used only as a starting point for serious research.

Worst:

• The great majority of articles are a hopeless mess of bad writing, incorrect grammar and usage, sloppy punctuation, and inconsistent spelling and style. Many are badly disorganized and desperately need top-to-bottom revamping. I've given up on trying to edit almost anything anymore. It's like pissing in the ocean. Generally only Featured Articles, and usually Good Articles, are reasonably clean.
• Vast numbers of articles are horribly out of date, with statistics and history stopping at 2015 or even 2010 or earlier. The beginnings of court cases are reported, but often the final resolution (sentencing, etc.) isn't given. Many articles are filled with legitimate unanswered questions and [citation needed] tags that have been there for years.

I'll stop there, but I could add lots more. What are your cheers and jeers pertaining to Wikipedia?

Hey there,

Sorry to bother this thread if this is a stupid question or something that's already been answered. I can't see any text when I try to search a wikipedia page and it's so frustrating. The hyperlinks just look like blue lines and even when I type in the search bar my text doesn't show. I have tried to find the settings on the page but it is really hard because each of the options are just lines and I can't see what I am choosing. Cleared my browser history and restarted my computer too with no luck. If anyone has any help or know a better place to ask I'd appreciate it. Thank you !

Title basically says it all. I’ve just been keeping track of the numbers as I am interested to know which historical people the general population looks up the most, with Adolf Hitler, Elizabeth II, Elvis Presley, Albert Einstein, and Barrack Obama being some of the most consistently viewed (600-700k views per month) with the majority of the historical figures I track being between 50-250k views per month. But for some reason Cleopatra has consistently been in the millions (typically 4-5 million views per month). I have absolutely no idea why this is. Does anyone have any ideas as to an explanation of this?

I mention this on the talk page but I'm looking for opinions on what to do about this, if anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoralism?wprov=sfla1

From my understanding people who say "electoralism" in a modern context are talking about this in left-wing circles to distinguish those left wingers who believe in participating in liberal democratic systems to achieve their goals from people who reject any participation in democracy as a trap, favoring community organizing, revolution, building a party that will form a government after the current government collapses, or whatever other tactic they support.

There may be other definitions, perhaps by other political groups who face a similar dilemma.

I'm doing my own work to track down sources but I'm interested in how this type of thing would be formatted. Should it be multiple pages like Electoralism(Transition to Democracy) and Electoralism(Radical Politics) with a disambiguation or would we try to include multiple usages of the word on the same page? Also obviously the hypothetical names I've given are not the best, I wonder what else might work or if the parenthetical is even necessary.

wikibattles.com is a site where you can challenge opponents with games developed around Wikipedia. It currently has 2 game modes and a daily puzzle:

• Game mode 1: Race. This is the classic Wikipedia game where two players race to see who can get from a starting page to an ending page faster.
• Game mode 2: Duration. In this game mode two players take turns trying to name a link in the current Wikipedia page. A link is any Wikipedia page that can be travelled to from the current page. If a link is found, that link becomes the new current page and it becomes the other player's turn to guess.
• Daily puzzle: Similar to the Race game mode. You are given a starting and ending page and you try to get from start to end as quick and/or in as little pages as possible. The starting and ending pages change daily.

In each game mode you can search for a random opponent or send an invite link to a friend.

This site is still very early in development so there may be bugs and unfriendly UI. I have a long list of features/improvements to be implemented but I'm interested in feedback. I'm curious if people have ideas for improvements, new game modes, etc.

When an article contains a table which is too wide for the screen, I have to swipe to the left to see the info on the right of the table. Very often, this results in the Contents page appearing from the right and taking up about 80% of the screen. I can't find a way to switch this off - is it possible? Thanks

Welcome to the weekly Wikipedia Q&A thread!

Please use this thread to ask and answer questions related to Wikipedia and its sister projects, whether you need help with editing or are curious on how something works.

Note that this thread is used for "meta" questions about Wikipedia, and is not a place to ask general reference questions.

Some other helpful resources:

• Help Contents on Wikipedia
• Guide to Contributing on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia IRC Help Channel
• Wikipedia Teahouse (help desk)

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪JJMC89‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected . Start of block: 00:04, 20

I live in China at the moment, so as you can see above, I can't change anything (Wikipedia denied anyone from this IP range, or proxy, or vpn... and China blocked it).

The claim on the Stingray page is that they could be reproducing asexually:

At the Sea Life London Aquarium two female stingrays have delivered seven baby stingrays, although the mothers have not been near a male for two years. "Rays have been known to store sperm and not give birth until they decide the timing is right".

Ref: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray#Reproduction

There's zero sources or references linked to that claim.

As far as I know, this doesn't happen in species that aren't archaea and bacteria, but that is not my expertise, so if I'm wrong, I apologize, but a reference on the Stringray page is definitely needed I believe.

*Edit:* I don't know why the title is "wi", I can't change it.