This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiHow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Regarding this edit. Were you able to find any sources we can cite showing this as a criticism? While I agree that censorship is certainly valid grounds for criticism, when I refactored this article a few months ago for the purposes of providing citations and improving formatting, I moved the subject from criticisms to the descriptive section as I was unable to find any attributable sources to cite showing criticism of this nature.
-- Versageek 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I am a wikiHow admin/editor, I have a close relationship to the site which is the subject of this article. My objective in editing this page is to make it a properly formatted, well referenced, Wikipedia article. In addition, I periodically update the site statistics and milestones from the given references.
GRAFITACK: 226, 113, 110 AND 112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.130.44 ( talk) 08:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
so in this fascist thought regime, how can one politely protest a deletion, or is it basically "screw you, our opintion are final"? Oh wait, don't bother to reply to this one ... or better yet, ban the dissenters.
--134.84.134.46 4 May 2006
I agree with 134.84.134.46 - wiki means anyone should be able to contribute anything, not only what a small, centralised committee would approve. Why not conduct a randomized poll of wikihow users and contributors what they think of the deletion policies?
--130.91.156.225 10 July 2006
Wikihow is sort of communist. It needs to be a little more democratic, if not anarchistic. Cjinaz 19:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cjinaz, wikihow is very much like a communist country. If the admins don't like it, then screw you. I remember they deleted a whole bunch of Massie Block things just because an admin didn't like her and the articles didn't even go against deletion policy. They're a bunch of nazis. Kenny'sLover 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if I may, I'd like to mention the discussion pages of articles on wikiHow. The process by which the administrators decide on if the article should be deleted is by popular vote.. If there are more people that want to keep it then not, then the article is left. If more people want it gone, it's deleted. There may be some confusion about this, as, in many cases, editors vote without creating an account. wikiHow is somewhat unclear on this part of the deletion process- in deciding if an article should be deleted, administrators DO NOT COUNT the votes of people that do not have an account, due to the much larger number of vandals and spammers that do not bother with an account. So, in this regards, maybe they are a bit. Besides that, the Massie Block incident was no different. The main article, How to Think, Look, and Act Like Massie Block, was a merge-to source for many months. It soon became a cesspool for anyone to just add anything on, and was soon in violation of MANY rules, such as being mean-spirited, low-quality past being able to be saved, and I believe there may have been some illegal things, believe it or not. So, since it was much too long to edit back, and it was clearly in violation, it was voted to be deleted. After that, the Massie Block articles were treated in the exact same way, and the votes went the same way. There are currently FOUR articles about Massie Block on wikiHow, which should be enough. Besides this particular incident, I see no way that wikiHow can be considered truly communist. The administrators have only a few extra powers: delete articles after the voting has said to do so, change titles by request, block vandals. The blocking is monitered closely. To call wikiHow communist and to say that the administrators are biased is untrue and unfair to the people that put their hard work into it. It may not be a perfect site, and it may have some members that are, in fact, biased and going against what you would expect, but we try to keep that out of things. 74.242.22.30 03:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in that particular case, it looks to me as if the REGISTERED USERS voted more to keep it. That's the thing about wikiHow that few people seem to realize- unless you are actually registered, your vote in the deletion process is NOT counted. That is to keep people from posting elsewhere on the Internet how horrible the article is, then NFDing it, and then having people who haven't even read the article, nor contributed in the site in any way, coming en masse to delete it. Also, that was one of wikiHow's most controversial articles.. In cases such as that, wikiHow tends to try and figure out if the reason for NFD is liable or not, and, if it is not, and yet the votes are for it to be deleted, it tends to be considered a "mistrial" of sorts. That is, it is considered that opinion of the NATURE of the article's content, such as gay rights, abortion, etc. is what the users are actually debating on the discussion page, instead of the actual article itself. It's rather akward at times, however, that is not bias on the administrator's side. 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.30.46 ( talk)
wikiHow now has an official MySpace profile. Reference Ayudante 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is wikihow so astonishingly useless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.37.247 ( talk) 01:59, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I'm so upset, I wanted to create an account on Wikihow, but since people have been vandelising like crazy on my IP address I can't make one. Kenny'sLover 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed some of the discussion on this talk page per WP:SPAM. Please discuss ways to improve the article. 68.209.235.149 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There was a question in an edit summary on the history page why the link to the myspace page was removed. I was the editor who removed it after taking a look at it and seeing nothing going on...the last update was June 2007 when the page was created, and there are only a handful of friends. Myspace is an iffy link at best, and I didn't think the link added anything to the article or the understanding of the subject, but instead reinforced the not-so-nice comments made earlier. The link could be easily added when the page gains momentum. Flowanda | Talk 23:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Instead of boldy removing this section altogether, please discuss your edits first and reach a consensus with other editors. Thanks. 68.209.235.149 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a criticism. WikiHow keeps trying to follow me on twitter. At least 10 times I have denied WikiHow and every time they pop right back up wanting to follow me. Can someone tell WikiHow to quit "twitter stalking" me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.228.72.1 ( talk) 16:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently some people get upset if you remove un-sourced junk from articles and get rid of cruft-magnet "criticism" sections, I'll explain the material I've removed:
Many critics of WikiHow have focused on what they claim is institutionalised patronism and condescension, trivialising serious issues such as in articles about 'How to be a Hobo' and 'How to Panhandle.'{{Fact|date=October 2007}}
And who says this other than a couple of Wikipedia editors? See WP:V.
WikiHow's censorship policy prohibits articles on topics that are "sexually charged", illegal activities, drug use. and potentially destructive things,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wikihow.com/WikiHow:Deletion-Policy |title=wikiHow Deletion Policy|publisher = wikiHow|accessdate= 2007-03-08 }}</ref> which critics argue undermines the very idea behind an educational resource.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}
One part is referenced (a simple statement of fact), the other part is more "critics argue" junk. WP:V.
Some articles on have been known to offend certain people and create major controversies and conflicts. wikiHow allows worldwide views on many subjects including how-to's on different religious views, current events like abortion and same-sex marriages, stereotypical fashions and attitudes, and politics. In addition to creating articles on these topics, users may discuss the topics and content of the articles on the article discussion pages.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}
More "critics argue" junk. WP:V
If you have a problem with this go argue with Wikipedia policy. This sort of crap doesn't have any place in an encyclopedia article.
Love, Lewis Collard! ( rock me mama like a southbound train) 06:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section on articles causing offense or controversy because there were no sources outside wikihow used as citations, and I could find no sources meeting WP:RS. Note that non-notable websites and blogs do not meet reliable sources policies. Flowanda | Talk 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is tagged as needing better sources. Maybe it is possible to find some unaffiliated articles: < http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Herald/In-The-News>. Sourcejedi ( talk) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
if available, could someone please put what software this used (I think I heard its either wordpress or mediawiki) thanks Ms.henrick ( talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I plan on making a bold expansion on this article in the near future. I'm a very active contributor on wikiHow, so I know quite a bit about it. Writing Enthusiast ( talk) 23:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There Is More Then 9742227 Asikhassan03 ( talk) 09:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Great article. Vimala Darshani ( talk) 08:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Love the post thanks 109.157.98.184 ( talk) 17:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Is WikiHow affiliated with WikiPedia, or not? Is it like WikiLeaks, where it has Wiki in the title but is unrelated with WikiMedia? UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
How to build relationships with female King proz ( talk) 08:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on WikiHow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
wikiHow in the URL is WikiHow. Every time I type wikiHow, it just goes to WikiHow. Fix it. 111.88.15.218 ( talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Please change:
Typically, images are illustrated by WikiHow admins, usually under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike-Noncommercial license. However, users may upload and contribute images.
To:
Typically, images are illustrated by wikiHow staff...users may upload and contribute images.
(I am not sure if editing wikiHow could potentially put me in a conflict-of-interest with this article, but I am putting this here just in case.) Awesome Aasim 07:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
. Thank you!Regards, Spintendo 08:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
"...the talk page of
Wikipedia states that all contributors of Wikipedia may have a potential COI when editing that article."
I'm not familiar with what talk page you're referring to. Without having seen it, I would guess that this might be analogous to a Wikipedia editor editing the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia, which is generally not considered to be a problem.
[a] I believe I've received one request from an editor who was intrinsically involved in a certain area of Wikipedia who felt uncomfortable editing the page directly persuant to that project, which I believe was the Commons (it was actually an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who did not want to edit the Foundation's page on Wikipedia), but beyond that those situations are rarely a problem.
[b] If you were employed in some manner by WikiHow, in that you received money from them, then it would be a COI. If you're just an editor there, then I don't see a problem. The claim you are making regards how users may upload images, and I would be more concerned that the advice the sentence you're proposing is giving squares with WikiHow's official policy, more so than any possible COI issues. If you'd like to make this change then please go ahead. Regards,
Spintendo
20:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Notes
After noticing the {{advert}}
template was
recently added to this article, my colleague
User:JayneG2 at wikiHow left a message on
User_talk:The_Anome asking for more information. She hasn't gotten a reply there yet so perhaps this is a better place to ask. We'd like to help address the issue but aren't sure what specifically prompted the template to be added. Also, any suggestions on how we, as employees of wikiHow, can best participate in improving the article would be very helpful.
Trevor Parscal (
talk)
19:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay—so officially, wikiHow uses the trendy initial lower-case W. But when it starts a sentence here, isn't it WP style to capitalize the first letter for clarity? If not, why does the article begin with it capitalized? Shouldn't the page be more consistent, one way or the other? (I'd choose to capitalize it when it starts sentences, but I may be influenced by my disdain for trendy defiance of things that are done for good reasons.) – AndyFielding ( talk) 23:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)