About this question "who had the idea for Wikipedia" and "who came up with the name" ... a good few people are unaware that there are extant mailing list posts, still online today, that shed light on all of this:
Larry Sanger, 10 Jan 2001:Let's make a wiki – No, this is not an indecent proposal. It's an idea to add a little feature to Nupedia. Jimmy Wales thinks that many people might find the idea objectionable, but I think not. "Wiki," pronounced \wee'-kee\, derives from a Polynesian word, "wikiwiki," but what it means is a VERY open, VERY publicly-editable series of web pages. For example, I can start a page called EpistemicCircularity and write anything I want in it. Anyone else (yes, absolutely anyone else) can come along and make absolutely any changes to it that he wants to.
Larry Sanger, 11 Jan 2001: > Maybe we could install the wiki under a totally different brand name, and just let people who sign up for Nupedia aware that lots of Nupedians tend to hang out there. That'd be fine with me; I'm not sure how exactly it would be connected to Nupedia, though. We wouldn't call it "the Nupedia wiki" though that's what it would be. We might have a question on the "about" page: "Q. Do you have a place where I can simply write down ideas, post articles, etc., for public consumption? A. Yes. Use the _wikipedia_!" On the "wikipedia" we would say that this is a supplementary project to Nupedia which operates entirely independently. Larry
Jimmy Wales, 31 Oct 2001 (today, 20 years ago): Nupedia was started first, and is extremely high quality in the limited content that it does produce. After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and me!) who are intimidated and bored (sorry, Nupedia!) with the tedium of the process.
"Angela Merkel gave up her job as chancellor of Germany which she has held for 16 years." - No, as her article says, she's still there and will remain in place until a new governing coalition is formed after the recent elections. This may well take until Christmas, or beyond. Also, if you are going to mention the BBC's Click piece, you should mention the wildly inaccurate graphic and voice-over explaining how WP picks different administrators for America, Europe.... . Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked out the BBC graphic to see how bad it is. Sure - to a Wikipedian it looks bad. They took a full 30 seconds (out of almost 10 minutes) to explain how our system of administrators work and all they could get across is that each country elects its own admins. Other than the flags on the graphic with some fairly meaningless arrows - the mistake would be corrected by saying "language version" instead of "country." I'd guess you don't spend a whole lot of time reading or viewing media stories about Wikipedia. They're almost all filled with much more serious mistakes than that.
As far as Merkel - yup, we made a mistake. She declared she'd be leaving a while ago (2 months perhaps?) Her party finished in 2nd place a month ago. I thought Germans were supposed to be efficient! How long do Germans usually take to change a departing Chancellor? (Another stereotype bites the dust!). Sorry. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to to crumple your stereotype, Smallbones. It's precisely their efficiency that makes them very careful about making decisions. Until the FRG in 1949 German political history had never been a role model for democracy - and it still wasn't complete until 1990. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A) they showed continents not countries, and yes I do spend quite a lot of time doing that, & that's a pretty bad unforced error. I wonder if they checked the story with WMUK? B) Merkel first said (well ahead of time) she'd be leaving about 18 months ago. The Germans usually take 2-3 months to form a coalition, about the same as the Italians, but a lot faster than the Belgians. I'm not sure this is the year for Americans to crow about smooth transitions. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage also used to be blacklisted by Google. The reason was that Google originally considered it a mirror of Wikitravel, the project it split off from. Maybe the other search engines are doing this as well. Nosferattus (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bulletin "Wikipedia is so politicized and dishonest it's no longer worth reading: if you believe Tucker Carlson (Fox News)" should have been followed by one reading "Tucker Carlson (Fox News) is so politicized and dishonest he's no longer worth watching: if you believe Wikipedia". — Bilorv (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as a number of reliable sources have pointed out, Tucker Carlson is not a reliable source. -- llywrch (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not characterize any commentator as "not worth watching". That would be a serious violation of NPOV. This isn't a situation of symmetrical criticism. --Yair rand (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did I black out and talk to a podcaster without remembering any of it or is there just a brief mention of my username in this dot com podcast? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: I can't rule out the scenario of you blacking out, but you don't speak in the first 30 minutes of the podcast. Perhaps a copy editor switched you and Larry S. in the paragraphs above. No, I figured out what happened - and of course it is my fault. You are mentioned at 27:41 of the podcast. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)