Tell us about Vietnamese Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This page belongs to the project Tell us about your Wikipedia.

Name of the Wikipedia[edit]

Tiếng Việt - vi



Other Wikipedias[edit]

Organization and support[edit]

Your Wikipedia and the linguistic community[edit]


  • Does your edition concentrates on certain topics, like your region and language, or Latin Wikipedia on Roman history and Christianity?
    We don't concentrate to any certain topics, but we are proud for some articles about Vietnam war, cuisine, history and Buddism. Vinhtantran 01:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a pity that other topics such as sex, society and Vietnam's politic-related are usually get deleted because "it isn't nobtable". It's also a lot of sockpuppeteer are actived and prevent Vietnamese Wikipedia from developing new topics by using vote-for-deletion project page (a result of "judging based on public “community” voting not discussion" lol).--Rjanal 10:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vietnam-related topics. Can't blame, most of the users are Vietnamese anyway. However, most content in military/war-related articles are written from a non-neutral point of view – the current government's: Communism is good, RVN is bad, Putin is the Tsar of the world, things like that. Also, thanks to some sockpuppets and indecisive admins, I horribly realized that things are much worse than what I originally thought. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did your edition enjoy text donations, for example from older encyclopedias?
    We cite some definition from Viet Nam Encyclopedia, and often refer to historical material about feudalism in Vietnam. Vinhtantran 01:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, some local author let us use their text (and some of them are Wikipedians too).--Rjanal 10:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never heard about this. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]



This Wikipedia isn't bad, but it really lacks of good editor and solid rules so it prevent itself from developing. You people don't watch the number of article, they are big because someone created a lot stubs and articles about sometown in Sahara with four people.. everyday, everymonth and everyyear. I'm an former editor (I has worked for Vietnamese Wikipedia for 4 years and recently left it, from the time I'm and highschool stundent to now I'm going to graduating from university, because I didn't see any development of this Wikipedia except the number of article) and everything I wrote above is from my point of view, no offense is given.--Rjanal 11:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We generally have more good editors than in 2009, but there are also a lot of users who participating in areas in which they have little to no clue. Since viwiki is, as I said above, like a closed country, and many users are quite young and immature, lots of efforts in constructing actual policies and opening went wasted as, in a vote-based community, the majority of votes always come to who makes good relationships. Some users even use incomprehensible or grammarly incorrect Vietnamese when communicating, somes interpret policies their own way and make bad uses of warning templates against innocent editors (e.g. demanding a non-local Wikimedian to request for changing username just because their username is not written in Latin alphabet).
The most misused criteria is C2, which theoretically applies to "Test pages"; nowadays, it is used for all kinds of bad articles, from stub, machine translation to articles by new users, who have just tried editing and have absolutely no idea of how a nice page looks like. Our deletion process is also, pardon me, ridiculous: it requires that before nominating, a {{notability}} template must be placed on the article for seven days or more, after which the so-called community will decide its fate in a vote won by majority of at least 5 users. Now, what have I just said about young users? Some level-headed users will give their view, and the rest are Argumentum ad populum/Argumentum ab auctoritate and/or mere votes. If a vote was closed as keep, the article in question can never be nominated again, which goes against the fact that consensus can change.
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 01:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot creation of articles[edit]

A great many of the Vietnamese Wikipedia's recent articles have been created automatically using bots, manually with word processors and mail merge, or semi-automatically with machine translators like (presumably) Google Translator Toolkit. Nonetheless, Cheers!-bot held a moratorium on new articles around the million-article mark, so that day was all about writing articles the old fashioned way.

Predictably, our bot articles are more infobox than prose. On the other hand, they do have correct grammar and wiki syntax, which cannot be said for most machine-translated articles, comprehensive as they may be. Cheers! is one of our most experienced editors and has done an admirable job correcting errors, whereas some machine translator users have uploaded incomprehensible articles anonymously, giving us no opportunity to engage and educate.

I can't say for certain how Cheers!-bot generates species stubs, but its earlier U.S. geographic stubs were "translated" from the Spanish Wikipedia's own bot-created stubs. I'm in the process of cleaning them up, translating the occasional Spanish place name to Vietnamese. We're also integrating our vi:Template:Infobox settlement with Wikidata, to provide more current information with minimal maintenance. For example, see the infobox at vi:Loveland, Ohio, which passes only three parameters but provides 18 rows of information.

The surge in bot-created stubs has alarmed some members of the Vietnamese Wikipedia community. One frequent theme in our village pump is that our "depth" at m:List of Wikipedias has fallen from over a hundred (one of the highest) to just 15 (one of the lowest) in a few years. Even taking the depth metric with a grain of salt, I think this observation has led us to a newfound appreciation for edits, non-articles, and maybe even authentic, hand-made articles.

More importantly, the million-article milestone has shed a light on our seemingly low number of active editors. Some have expressed concern that the steadily rising article count has disincentivized readers from creating own articles on their own. So we're discussing some changes to our main page and messages to better engage potential contributors. We've also integrated tightly with VisualEditor -- the sandbox, "no such article" message, and "no search results" message all send users to VisualEditor by default -- hopefully lowering barriers to entry.

None of the Vietnamese Wikipedia's bot operators are interested in inflating our article count for the sake of. We care deeply about the future of our wiki and the health of its community, and we welcome feedback from the community at large.

8 years ago, we got 15; now, viwiki is the only wiki with no depth, even worse than cebwiki, which has ~6 millions bot-created articles. Why? One of our admins (and bureaucrats) welcomed 15 millions IPv4s with his bot. Needless to say, he finally got his advance rights revoked; however, that caused a severe problem. Another admin of us is planning to deleted all of those, also with his bot, to get the depth index back.
1 million articles exacerbates people's editcountitis/articlecountitis, while doing nothing in improving the editing community, if not making it worse. We no longer use bots to create articles, but realizing that those shiny numbers bring more anger than joy took quite a long time. Fixing also can't just take a day or two; everything is still a mess.

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 01:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we may want to develop automated welcoming messages for IPs getting the first edit only - to prevent mass welcomings of IP address. Viwiki depth is now "smaller" than shwiki (715<746) but it won't return again unless there IP-welcoming messages are deleted. (TuanminhBot get more edits in viwiki than all other users combined) Thingofme (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]