Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not about winning

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on December 22nd, 2011. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Could be better

It doesn't say why consensus is preferred to "winning," nor does it address the fact that sometimes a "win" does produce a better encyclopedia than a consensus. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per whom? You? Tharthan (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@68.156.95.34 I agree...If people study Socrates or harder's Hegel's philosophy, this article should be deleted. Also there is a link Wikipedia is not war, to the chinese translation of this article. I also fell not worthy to negate, but that's other talk. Cato kvuh (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not projecting a very good cooperative attitude, Tharthan. I took the point well, and agree that those who promote consensus = progress may be deluding themselves. If, "he who can garner the most votes wins", then this page has no point. By default, that means it could be better, if only through its deletion. A thing can only be excluded from improvement when it is perfect.BRealAlways (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a little too smug

"...you'll start telling people that Wikipedia is a joke. That's fine with us, because you're still looking up Justin Bieber's new hit on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia has won."

I read Wiki regularly, but it is largely a joke and I know to always be on guard here. Why do I regard is as a joke? A few years ago I inserted a totally random "fact" into the article of a popular song written and recorded by a well-known artist. It alleged that the track was actually written by another famous artist who neglected to claim the writing credit, and just handed it over in order to thank the official writer for a previous debt clearance. My nonsense addition managed to go undetected and, over time, was picked up by lazy journos in "reputable" newspapers and music magazines, whose articles were used to cite the text I added. The best part is, I tried to remove the material and was repeatedly reverted, before being met with a 24-hour block. "Well-referenced", they said.

I think the Wikipedia users behind this article need to accept that the site is mentioned with a snigger by many folks, and with good reason. 82.132.217.148 (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too much pop culture.

I am quivering from just taking a glance at the article. "Wikipedia is not World of Encyclopediacraft." "...you're still looking up Justin Bieber's new hit...". Remove the pop culture references as everyone may not be able to relate to them. (Just saying) BrightSunMan (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]