Mailing List Archive

Hoi,
When you talk about the wikipedia, it indicate in my appreciation this
authoritative instance. There is no such thing as *the* authoritative
Wikipedia. While many consider the English Wikipedia as such, it is very
much the German Wikipedia that pioneered the use of Flagged Revision, it is
the Serbian and Chinese Wikipedias who show the way on support for multiple
scripts.

There is Wikipedia, the multi lingual project that provides encyclopaedic
information.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/6/27 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>

> Hello,
> Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
> article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
> Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
> non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
> Brockhaus".
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/6/27 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>:
> Hello,
> Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
> article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
> Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
> non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
> Brockhaus".
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>

In english you would frequently say Britannica with a "the". "The
Wikipedia" would only come up in contexts like "the wikipedia
encyclopedia..." which is about the only context I can think of where
you would see "the Encarta" show up.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/6/27 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>:
> Hello,
> Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
> article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
> Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
> non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
> Brockhaus".

We do indeed say "I looked it up in the Encyclopedia Britannica", but
we also say "I looked it up in Encarta" or "I looked it up in
Whitaker's". Whether or not something gets an initial article is a bit
erratic, on the whole...

(Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word -
we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia
Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be
wrong)

For what it's worth, I've noticed that "the Wikipedia" is becoming
more common, but more among third parties than among people associated
with the project.

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I've always assumed it's because websites are locations... not things.

You don't say "go to the google" or "go to the wikipedia" for the same
reason you do not say "go to the new york" or "go to the london"

--
Eddie A. Tejeda


On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Hello,
> Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
> article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
> Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
> non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
> Brockhaus".
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
> Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
> article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
> Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
> non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
> Brockhaus".
>
Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite
article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I
would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular
case may indicate a difference between British and American English
here, I'm guessing from the other comments.

There are some situations where you would use the definite article for
singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the
name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might
refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia"
and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Let's just cut to the point; it's pretty much the same reason we don't
abbreviate as wiki; just thinking about somebody calling Wikipedia "the
Wikipedia" makes my head hurt...
--Unionhawk

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net>wrote:

> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
> > article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
> > Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
> > non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
> > Brockhaus".
> >
> Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite
> article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I
> would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular
> case may indicate a difference between British and American English
> here, I'm guessing from the other comments.
>
> There are some situations where you would use the definite article for
> singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the
> name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might
> refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia"
> and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/6/27 Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net>:
> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
>> article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
>> Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
>> non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
>> Brockhaus".
>>
> Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite
> article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I
> would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular
> case may indicate a difference between British and American English
> here, I'm guessing from the other comments.
>
> There are some situations where you would use the definite article for
> singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the
> name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might
> refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia"
> and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.

I agree with you, and I speak British English. I would say "the
Encyclopaedia Britannica" (NB. the middle word has two a's. As
suggested by the final word, it is (originally) a British thing, so
takes the British spelling, which has two a's [or an "æ" if you want
to be pedantic].). I would, however, say "Britannica" not "the
Britannica".

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

When I look into Duden Die Grammatik, this authoritative reference
work about German grammar says that proper names (Angela, Berlin,
Christmas) don't get an article: "Hamburg liegt an der Elbe." But it
mentions many exceptions, like for rivers who actually do get an
article (such as "die Elbe"). An article you use also for institutions
("die UNO") and works ("der Wallenstein", "das Ave Verum").
So what is "Wikipedia", an institution, a work, a proper name? In
German texts I find a lot of inconsequences, sometimes in one sentence
there is "die Wikipedia" an then again "Wikipedia". I believed that
that has to do with the context: "I am registered at Wikipedia"
(institution), and "I have written something in the Wikipedia" (work).
But this does not fit with my actual findings. Then I thought that
"Wikipedia" without article is an anglicism, but it seems not to be
that easy, too.
What else do we compare (the) Wikipedia with, except for other
encyclopedias? A web site like Google? A social movement like
Greenpeace?
And how about "Wikimedia"? In a short corpus I studied the reporter
said "Wikimedia e.V." in German, although I say "die Wikimedia". In
English, is it "the Wikimedia"? "The Foundation"? "The Wikimedia
Foundation"?
Kind regards,
your confused
Ziko


2009/6/27 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
> 2009/6/27 Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net>:
>> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
>>> article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
>>> Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
>>> non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
>>> Brockhaus".
>>>
>> Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite
>> article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I
>> would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular
>> case may indicate a difference between British and American English
>> here, I'm guessing from the other comments.
>>
>> There are some situations where you would use the definite article for
>> singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the
>> name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might
>> refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia"
>> and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.
>
> I agree with you, and I speak British English. I would say "the
> Encyclopaedia Britannica" (NB. the middle word has two a's. As
> suggested by the final word, it is (originally) a British thing, so
> takes the British spelling, which has two a's [or an "æ" if you want
> to be pedantic].). I would, however, say "Britannica" not "the
> Britannica".
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

"Wikipedia" and "the Foundation" sounds right to me. When in doubt, if it
sounds right, it probably is. German grammar, I can't help you... Dieser
Benutzer *hat keine
Deutschkenntnisse<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_de>
*.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>wrote:

> When I look into Duden Die Grammatik, this authoritative reference
> work about German grammar says that proper names (Angela, Berlin,
> Christmas) don't get an article: "Hamburg liegt an der Elbe." But it
> mentions many exceptions, like for rivers who actually do get an
> article (such as "die Elbe"). An article you use also for institutions
> ("die UNO") and works ("der Wallenstein", "das Ave Verum").
> So what is "Wikipedia", an institution, a work, a proper name? In
> German texts I find a lot of inconsequences, sometimes in one sentence
> there is "die Wikipedia" an then again "Wikipedia". I believed that
> that has to do with the context: "I am registered at Wikipedia"
> (institution), and "I have written something in the Wikipedia" (work).
> But this does not fit with my actual findings. Then I thought that
> "Wikipedia" without article is an anglicism, but it seems not to be
> that easy, too.
> What else do we compare (the) Wikipedia with, except for other
> encyclopedias? A web site like Google? A social movement like
> Greenpeace?
> And how about "Wikimedia"? In a short corpus I studied the reporter
> said "Wikimedia e.V." in German, although I say "die Wikimedia". In
> English, is it "the Wikimedia"? "The Foundation"? "The Wikimedia
> Foundation"?
> Kind regards,
> your confused
> Ziko
>
>
> 2009/6/27 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
> > 2009/6/27 Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net>:
> >> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>> Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
> >>> article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
> >>> Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
> >>> non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
> >>> Brockhaus".
> >>>
> >> Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite
> >> article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I
> >> would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular
> >> case may indicate a difference between British and American English
> >> here, I'm guessing from the other comments.
> >>
> >> There are some situations where you would use the definite article for
> >> singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the
> >> name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might
> >> refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia"
> >> and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.
> >
> > I agree with you, and I speak British English. I would say "the
> > Encyclopaedia Britannica" (NB. the middle word has two a's. As
> > suggested by the final word, it is (originally) a British thing, so
> > takes the British spelling, which has two a's [.or an "æ" if you want
> > to be pedantic].). I would, however, say "Britannica" not "the
> > Britannica".
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:37, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:

> There are some situations where you would use the definite article for
> singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the
> name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns.


I would also use the definite article if I were referring to a specific
language's Wikipedia - "the English Wikipedia", "the Swahili Wikipedia", et
al. - instead of to the Wikipedia project in general.

As for referring to Wikimedia, in English one would say "the Wikimedia
Foundation" since "Wikimedia" clarifies which foundation we're talking
about. If the name didn't use the word "foundation" - if it were "Wikimedia
Earth" or "Wikimedia United" - then the definite article would not be
necessary.

--
Jim Redmond
jim@scrubnugget.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk>wrote:

> (Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word -
> we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia
> Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be
> wrong)


I don't have a problem with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia
Britannica". In fact, after consideration, I'd say adding in "the" would be
technically incorrect. Looking at britannica.com, EB consistently refers to
itself without "the" in the beginning.

Now look at www.cia.gov. Seems to be no rhyme or reason to the use or
nonuse of "the" when the CIA refers to themselves. "About CIA", "History of
the CIA", "Offices of CIA", "Contact CIA". "To accomplish its mission, the
CIA engages in research, development, and deployment of high-leverage
technology for intelligence purposes. As a separate agency, CIA serves as an
independent source of analysis..." They must have used Intellipedia to
create that paragraph.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk>wrote:
>
>> (Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word -
>> we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia
>> Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be
>> wrong)
>
>
> I don't have a problem with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia
> Britannica". In fact, after consideration, I'd say adding in "the" would be
> technically incorrect. Looking at britannica.com, EB consistently refers
> to itself without "the" in the beginning.
>

I'm sure there are quite a few other examples. The only one that comes to
mind, though, is "Best Damn Sports Show Period", and that one is treated
inconsistently even by the official websites.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/6/27 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk>wrote:
>
>> (Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word -
>> we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia
>> Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be
>> wrong)
>
>
> I don't have a problem with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia
> Britannica".  In fact, after consideration, I'd say adding in "the" would be
> technically incorrect.  Looking at britannica.com, EB consistently refers to
> itself without "the" in the beginning.

Interesting. I am inclined to take my lead from the organisation
itself for things like this, so perhaps I should change my speech.

> Now look at www.cia.gov.  Seems to be no rhyme or reason to the use or
> nonuse of "the" when the CIA refers to themselves.  "About CIA", "History of
> the CIA", "Offices of CIA", "Contact CIA".  "To accomplish its mission, the
> CIA engages in research, development, and deployment of high-leverage
> technology for intelligence purposes. As a separate agency, CIA serves as an
> independent source of analysis..."  They must have used Intellipedia to
> create that paragraph.

I hate inconsistency like that. What kind of major organisation
doesn't have a style guide detailing how its name should be used?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/6/27 Unionhawk <unionhawk.sitemod@gmail.com>:
> "Wikipedia" and "the Foundation" sounds right to me. When in doubt, if it
> sounds right, it probably is. German grammar, I can't help you... Dieser
> Benutzer *hat keine
> Deutschkenntnisse<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_de>
> *.

"The Foundation" is an interesting one. I'm never sure if it should
have a capital 'F' or not. The WMF gives it one, so I do too, but it
depends on whether you consider "Foundation" to be an abbreviation of
"Wikimedia Foundation" (so has a capital letter) or if you consider it
just be a regular noun that describes what the WMF is (so has a
lower-case letter).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.

When combined with an adjective modifying the project name, or a
common noun modified by the name, the compound noun does take an
article.

"Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation." is correct; so are
"The English Wikipedia", "the Wikipedia cabal", "the print Wikipedia
'Wikipedia:' namespace pages", and "the Wikimedia Foundation".

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj/wikipedia-the-history-of-a-name/

SJ


ps - I am confused by the first sentence on wikimedia.org [what does
'Wikimedia' mean there?], and the footer of wikimediafoundation says
"About Wikimedia Foundation" -- missing an article.


On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Jim Redmond<jim@scrubnugget.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:37, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> There are some situations where you would use the definite article for
>> singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the
>> name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns.
>
>
> I would also use the definite article if I were referring to a specific
> language's Wikipedia - "the English Wikipedia", "the Swahili Wikipedia", et
> al. - instead of to the Wikipedia project in general.
>
> As for referring to Wikimedia, in English one would say "the Wikimedia
> Foundation" since "Wikimedia" clarifies which foundation we're talking
> about.  If the name didn't use the word "foundation" - if it were "Wikimedia
> Earth" or "Wikimedia United" - then the definite article would not be
> necessary.
>
> --
> Jim Redmond
> jim@scrubnugget.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:

> ps - I am confused by the first sentence on wikimedia.org [what does
> 'Wikimedia' mean there?], and the footer of wikimediafoundation says
> "About Wikimedia Foundation" -- missing an article.
>

Well, the name of the foundation is "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", not "The
Wikimedia Foundation" or "Wikimedia".

"The Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor does not collect or send any personal,
identifiable data to *Microsoft Corporation* or third parties." (
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/upgrade-advisor.aspx) No
"the".
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/6/28 Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>:
> Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.

As far as I'm concerned "Wikimedia" doesn't exist as a proper noun.
It's just an adjective: "the Wikimedia Foundation", "the Wikimedia
movement", "the Wikimedia projects", "the Wikimedia community" etc.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/6/28 Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>:
>> Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
>
> As far as I'm concerned "Wikimedia" doesn't exist as a proper noun.
> It's just an adjective: "the Wikimedia Foundation", "the Wikimedia
> movement", "the Wikimedia projects", "the Wikimedia community" etc.

Nonsense -- Wikimedia is a proper (and trademarked) name. There are
lots of parts of Wikimedia, and that's generally how it's used --
e.g. "the Wikimedia community" -- but that's no different than saying
"the Microsoft developer community." That common usage doesn't mean
that Microsoft is not also a proper name!

One of the most confusing parts of all of this is the fact that "the
Wikipedia" is incorrect, but "the English Wikipedia" is correct. SJ
explained why better than I can.

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Okay, I have to say that this whole thread makes us all look a little silly.
Let it be known everlastingly that
*this*<http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/google_launches_the_google>is
why we don't say "the Wikipedia."'

Sheesh.

Steven

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2009/6/28 Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>:
> >> Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned "Wikimedia" doesn't exist as a proper noun.
> > It's just an adjective: "the Wikimedia Foundation", "the Wikimedia
> > movement", "the Wikimedia projects", "the Wikimedia community" etc.
>
> Nonsense -- Wikimedia is a proper (and trademarked) name. There are
> lots of parts of Wikimedia, and that's generally how it's used --
> e.g. "the Wikimedia community" -- but that's no different than saying
> "the Microsoft developer community." That common usage doesn't mean
> that Microsoft is not also a proper name!
>
> One of the most confusing parts of all of this is the fact that "the
> Wikipedia" is incorrect, but "the English Wikipedia" is correct. SJ
> explained why better than I can.
>
> -- phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Steven Walling | @StevenWalling
mobile: 360.606.2930
skype: stevenwalling
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Samuel Klein wrote:
> Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
>
> When combined with an adjective modifying the project name, or a
> common noun modified by the name, the compound noun does take an
> article.
>
> "Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation." is correct; so are
> "The English Wikipedia", "the Wikipedia cabal", "the print Wikipedia
> 'Wikipedia:' namespace pages", and "the Wikimedia Foundation".
>
A bit late on this, but I notice that [[en:Encyclopædia Britannica]]
consistently refers to that encyclopedia as "the Britannica". Given
that, I can hardly fault the average non-Wikipedian for being confused
as to why it's not, in a parallel way, "the Wikipedia"; I imagine
Britannica's dominance has conditioned a good many people to think that
"the _Encyclopedianame_" is the proper way to refer to encyclopedias.

I suspect this is some sort of archaic grammar being held over in
Britannica's case?

-Mark


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Once a name or monument transcends what it originally named and is
used by reference to describe similar things elsewhere, there is a
tendency to add the definite article -- the Earth, the Sun, the
Sphinx, the Oracle, the Colosseum. I do see people running wikis of
any sort on their own or their company site, with a comment that they
have 'set up their own wikipedia'. This would be consistent with
calling the original Project 'the' Wikipedia.

Yes, it's somewhat archaic if not self-important. WP has become the
largest human collaboration of all time, so it's not for lack of
transcendence... but it doesn't sound right to me. [.On the other
hand, I'm having a hard time thinking of a social or practical
movement whose name doesn't have a 'the' in it.]

SJ


On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Delirium<delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>> Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
>>
>> When combined with an adjective modifying the project name, or a
>> common noun modified by the name, the compound noun does take an
>> article.
>>
>> "Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation." is correct; so are
>>  "The English Wikipedia",  "the Wikipedia cabal", "the print Wikipedia
>> 'Wikipedia:' namespace pages", and "the Wikimedia Foundation".
>>
> A bit late on this, but I notice that [[en:Encyclopædia Britannica]]
> consistently refers to that encyclopedia as "the Britannica". Given
> that, I can hardly fault the average non-Wikipedian for being confused
> as to why it's not, in a parallel way, "the Wikipedia"; I imagine
> Britannica's dominance has conditioned a good many people to think that
> "the _Encyclopedianame_" is the proper way to refer to encyclopedias.
>
> I suspect this is some sort of archaic grammar being held over in
> Britannica's case?
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/7 Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>:

> Once a name or monument transcends what it originally named and is
> used by reference to describe similar things elsewhere, there is a
> tendency to add the definite article -- the Earth, the Sun, the
> Sphinx, the Oracle, the Colosseum.  I do see people running wikis of
> any sort on their own or their company site, with a comment that they
> have 'set up their own wikipedia'.  This would be consistent with
> calling the original Project 'the' Wikipedia.


That's common usage, which we're trying to drive back out by pointing
out that's a trademark and "wiki" is the generic term ;-)

Of course, then you have people using "wiki" to mean "Wkipedia" ...


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l