{"id":33,"date":"2005-02-07T04:24:16","date_gmt":"2005-02-07T08:24:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/metasj\/wikipedia-the-history-of-a-name\/"},"modified":"2012-06-26T05:50:40","modified_gmt":"2012-06-26T09:50:40","slug":"wikipedia-the-history-of-a-name","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wikipedia-the-history-of-a-name\/","title":{"rendered":"Wikipedia: the history of a name"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name=\"a770\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Wikipedia does not take an article.<\/p>\n<p>Here is a comment I left on David Weinberger&#8217;s blog the other day, after I had mentioned that Wikipedia takes no article and <strong>JD Lasica<\/strong> had commented that, as of early 2005, according to the [last item in the Miscellaneous] <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellaneous_FAQ&amp;oldid=9995175\">FAQ<\/a>, both &#8220;Wikipedia&#8221; and &#8220;the Wikipedia&#8221; were acceptable uses.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;color: #666666\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif\">&#8220;The English Wikipedia&#8221; may be the preferred colloquial usage, and &#8220;<em>the wiki &#8216;pedia<\/em>&#8221; may amuse the mind and roll off of the tongue, but &#8220;the Wikipedia&#8221; is rarely correct in any sentence, and never when referring to the Wikipedia project as a whole, with the proper noun as the object of the article.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;color: #666666\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif\">The FAQ answer you linked to above has hardly been copyedited since the <a href=\"http:\/\/meta.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/WWN_sample\">silver-tongued<\/a> Stephen Gilbert placed it into the Wikipedia <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ&amp;oldid=327325\">Overview FAQ<\/a> v.1 in 2002, at which time the Wikipedia community had yet to rule out the idea of being &#8220;the&#8221; wiki encyclopedia, justifying the name rather than claiming it. <\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;color: #666666\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif\">The truth is, other wiki &#8216;pedias may appear; since the original question was posed, the community has reached consensus, in the minds of the Wikipedia phalanges and in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.google.com\/search?hl=en&amp;q=%22the+wikipedia%22+site%3Awikipedia.org&amp;btnG=Google+Search\">Wikipedia articles<\/a> you read today, on the article-free name.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;color: #666666\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif\">The circle of articulate digerati who have recently preferred the &#8220;the Wikipedia&#8221; to the &#8220;Wikipedia&#8221; option, however, highlight the urgency of the struggle for nomenclatural justice.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;color: #666666\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif\">I have updated the Wikipedia <a>FAQ<\/a> to clarify and rectify the reality of the matter, and hope that the &#8220;the&#8221; the Wikipedia-loving fans of the aforementioned circle have grown accustomed to, will fall from fashion&#8230;<\/span><br \/>\n[35|12]<\/p>\n<p>It is true that a dwindling number of Wikipedians write &#8220;the Wikipedia&#8221;, thinking of it as <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">the <\/span>Wiki encyclopedia.\u00a0 A number of outsiders do the same, some also calling it even more inappropriately &#8220;the wiki&#8221;. \u00a0 Both uses merit swift remedy.\u00a0 If &#8216;Wikipedia&#8217; simply meant an encyclopedia using a wiki, and &#8216;The Wikipedia&#8217; meant the canonical site, anyone could come along and create &#8220;the Minnesota Militia Wikipedia&#8221;, which would be inconsistent with its actual use and the community&#8217;s idea of the trademark.\u00a0 It is the proper name of a project, and as such does not take an article.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Wikipedia does not take an article. Here is a comment I left on David Weinberger&#8217;s blog the other day, after I had mentioned that Wikipedia takes no article and JD Lasica had commented that, as of early 2005, according to the [last item in the Miscellaneous] FAQ, both &#8220;Wikipedia&#8221; and &#8220;the Wikipedia&#8221; were acceptable uses. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":135,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-33","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P7iVvB-x","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/135"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2625,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33\/revisions\/2625"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}