Talk:Italian Wikipedia

This article was nominated for deletion on February 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

A news item involving Italian Wikipedia was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 October 2011.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Italy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

How do automated bots including a bunch of changing (such as population ) data in a succint table per page compare to the spirit of what should be published in the Wikipedia?

I don't think so. Is this data going to be maintained and updated? can't this data be obtainable anyway from the original source it was found on the internet? That is, is the Italian wikipedia anyhow more useful now, after the 50.000+ one table entries they've added?

I think these "comuni" "projects" are mere exercices of vanity aimed at placing Italian in a position (i.e. number of articles , "ranking" among languages) it does unfortunately not have.

A bit ridiculous.

It is very sad to write an article with a town name in it and seeing it red, not having even a small stub showing its position, region or size. Note that only part of the data (demography) are form databases, and these are not accessible to everyone (being databases from Istat, on a overcrowded and excel-table-filled site). This could be ridicoulus, but your objection is simply stupid. --Jollyroger 17:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Adding articles with bots for small towns and so is a pratice used in all wikis. As an italian wikipedian, i feel hurt by this silly phrase: it seems our work is made mainly with bots. It.wiki is way better than other wikis with more articles, having less stubs and more full articles. Without using stolen images, too (i.e. "fair use"). Congratulations to the jackass that tought those "smart words", you understood what wikipedia is... --Jollyroger 17:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding articles with bots is not a practice used in all wikis. --° 15:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35.000 bot created articles are IMO worth mentioning, especially in the context of the growth race the article describes. But there's a simple solution to balance the bot part: add more information about the italian wikipedia to the article. --Elian ^Talk 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"On September 8", Which September 8 is meant?--OsamaK 07:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to some problems with images and the management of the sister project Wikimedia Commons, the community reached an agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. The agreement was called "Exemption Doctrine Policy", which allows users to upload images which comply with Italian law but are not suitable for Commons.

These sentences are misleading. The Exemption Doctrine Policy is the policy on non-free content (named Wikipedia:Non-free content here on English Wikipedia). The problems with Commons were related with the deletion of PD-Italy, that is still used on it.wp (and also on ca.wp en.wp, fr.wp, uk.wp). I would delete them. --Jaqen (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exemption Doctrine Policy is after (and provided by) Wikimedia foundation's Licensing policy.

So, I can not understand the "Due to some problems with images and the management of the sister project Wikimedia Commons" part ... --ChemicalBit (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the list of administrators in the Italian Wikipedia?

]

refrences needed

Features

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

• The Italian Wikipedia currently accepts free images licensed under the
  GFDL and Creative Commons
  . Fair use images have been rejected since April 2006 due to potential copyright problems, and many of them were subsequently replaced during 2007 with equivalents which follow Italian law.
• Unlike the English, French and German Wikipedias, the Italian Wikipedia does not have an Arbitration Committee.
• The Italian Wikipedia has used automated scripts to create articles, much like the English Wikipedia.
• Administrators are elected through a vote; a minimal quorum of 65-70 voters and 80% of support votes are required if the request is to be considered successful. Any administrator is automatically open to recall after a year of service. The community then decides whether to let them keep the role or not with a vote. Administrators who have been inactive (have not used any administrative tools such as the "delete" or "block" buttons) for six months automatically lose their privileges.

This article says that the Italian Wikipedia is the 8th largest edition of Wikipedia, and that it is larger than both the Spanish and Portugese Wikipedias. The latter clause is correct, and PtWiki is larger than EsWiki, as you can see by looking

As you can see here, in the spanish Wikipedia we have almost 486.000 articles (20-June-2009) and we are the 9th largest edition, while the italian Wikipedia is the 6th largest edition of Wikipedia (is most larger than NlWiki, PtWiki, EsWiki and RuWiki). -- DavoO (Talk) 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article says "becoming the 8th largest edition by article count", not currently, in 2005 after overtook the Spanish and Portuguese editions. I fix it the article. -- DavoO (Talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content is not accessible just a message protesting some new legislation that could get Italian Wikipedia sued for pretty much anything (that's what I get.)

[http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2011/10/04/news/wikipedia_in_bianco_contro_le_intercettazioni-22703312/ Intercettazioni, Wikipedia protesta homepage in bianco: "Inaccettabile ddl"] Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the news is there, I expanded a bit to explain the bill proposal, as it is now IMHO it would be too much recentism to add more. (assuming that part of the bill is going to be taken back, in fact). I treid to improve the English. --Max-CCC (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's sad the italian wiki is down, I just hope it will work soon again. Otherwise, where can I go to troll? :(

Go on, italian Wiki, go on!!

Obrigado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.22.140 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference number 9 of the article is not an English version. Can some please change it to: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a big first, Wikipedia blocks an entire country's articles:

"Wikipedia shuts Italy site to protest Berlusconi "gag law" (Reuters) - Wikipedia has disabled its Italian website in protest against a privacy law drafted by Silvio Berlusconi's government which would impose new restrictions on newspapers and Internet pages and curb police wiretaps...

"The very pillars on which Wikipedia has been built - -neutrality, freedom, and verifiability of its contents -- are likely to be heavily compromised," said a letter posted by the "Users of Wikipedia" on its site -- which was blocked to searches.

"The obligation to publish on our site the correction... without even the right to discuss and verify the claim, is an unacceptable restriction of the freedom and independence of Wikipedia," it said..." (Reuters, Wed. Oct 5, 2011.)

Finally, a block that all Wikipedians can agree on and be extremely proud of! Congratulations to all those at WP who made this brave decision, we are all proud of you! Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All those in support of Wikipedia's block of the Italian WP [1] in support of its own principles:

• IZAK (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I play devil's advocate here? The sentiments you express may resonate well with a faction of wikipedians. However, I have "met" quite a few here who do not believe Wikipedia should report news, let alone make the news. How do others feel? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP's perspective it seems to boil down to a simple matter, that old no-no of
      China that censors it, so he resorts to legal threats, and now WP has responded to his moves with its own counter-actions. This is going to be a long drawn out chess game and all sides are learning from it, including us. IZAK (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Yes, but, should Wikipedia report news, let alone make the news? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been a three day block of the Italian WP, the 4th, 5th & 6th of October 2011, as explained [2]. That makes it a 72 hour block. A nice "slap on the wrist" and warning. The editors and users of the Italian WP were in a very tough situation. Let's see what happens next. IZAK (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And now Berlusconi himself has been forced to resign in disgrace as his country crumbles. He ran out of "excuses" for creating scapegoats:
  Resignation of Silvio Berlusconi. IZAK (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Maybe somebody should alert them if this (not trying to be a killjoy, just stating a fact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke5skw (talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says that "On October 6, 2011, the website has reopened", so this is moot. Although the article did say that the mobile version was still accessible between the 4th and the 6th, this may have been a misunderstanding (someone accessing it on the morning of the 6th and getting the mobile version of the reopened site), but even if the mobile version was intact throughout, it seems unlikely to be relevant, if the site's staying open now. --

McGeddon (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be good to know to put the protest and the privacy law in context. How can such a law affect Italian sites hosted in another country outside the EU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigantibyte (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, let's assume someone doesn't like something, the plaintiff files a complaint, Italian Wikipedia ignores it, the next step would be for the authorities to send a cease and desist letter to the hosting company. However a host in another country is not bound by Italian law, the sole fact of having content in Italian does not make it subject to Italian law, if it's a different jurisdiction. I guess it's reasonable to argue that it.wiki are using their position to protest for sites that would be subject to this due to being hosted in Italy, even if it's not going to affect it.wiki itself. Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the courts (if the law had passed) could also punish an Italian citizen for posting there. The Italian courts can't force the website to remove it, but (if the law had passed) they could turn on the Italian who posts it. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian citizens posting from Italy are subject to Italian laws, as of art. 6 of it:Codice_penale_italiano.--Nickanc (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This word is being used in a non-English way; not quite sure what the intended meaning is... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, "voice" is a literal translation of the Ialian word for "article". Thanks, I made the corrections. --M.L.Watts_{Watts up?} 19:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, beautiful people. I wish to point out the way the articles strifes to underline how the Italian Wikipedia got where it got simply because of bots automatically creating articles ex novo ("Operazione «Comuni spagnoli»"). I require this to be edited out, since it is not pointed out on the pages about the Swedish Wikipedia, Waray Wikipedia or the Cebuano Wikipedia, which, as it is clear and evident, are basically an offspring of Lsjbot. Ew... Why isn't there written:

Again, the automated Lsjbot heavily contributed to the growth... (Operation «Mustelidae»?).

Well, actually the problem is that en.wiki is a huge lair of anti-Italian sentiment. --79.22.1.246 (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is unsourced and wrong: Template Bio on Italian Wikipedia is not an infobox and was created after infobox person. --Jaqen (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]