If I might weigh in here, I don't see the harm in including all the WMF wikis onto the
interwiki map.
MediaWiki is intensely related to the WMF, so those links make logical sense and it does
no harm to include them in my opinion.
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:40:37 -0500
From: nathanlarson3141(a)gmail.com
To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, This, that and the other <
at.light(a)live.com.au> wrote:
I can't say I care about people reading
through the interwiki list. It's
just that with the one interwiki map, we are projecting "our" internal
interwikis, like strategy:, foundation:, sulutil:, wmch: onto external
MediaWiki installations. No-one needs these prefixes except WMF wikis, and
having these in the global map makes MediaWiki look too WMF-centric.
It's a WMF-centric wikisphere, though. Even the name of the software
reflects its connection to Wikimedia. If we're going to have a
super-inclusive interwiki list, then most of those Wikimedia interwikis
will fit right in, because they meet the criteria of having non-spammy
recent changes and significant content in AllPages. If you're saying that
having them around makes MediaWiki "look" too WMF-centric, it sounds like
you are concerned about people reading through the interwiki list and
getting a certain impression, because how else would they even know about
the presence of those interwiki prefixes in the global map?
I don't see the need for instruction creep
here. I'm for an inclusive
interwiki map. Inactive wikis (e.g. RecentChanges shows only sporadic
non-spam edits) and non-established wikis (e.g. AllPages shows little
content) should be excluded. So far, there have been no issues with using
subjective criteria at meta:Talk:Interwiki map.
I dunno about that. We have urbandict: but not dramatica: both of which are
unreliable sources, but likely to be used on third-party wikis (at least
the ones I edit). We have wikichristian:
(~4,000<http://www.wikichristian.org/index.php?title=Special:Statistics>content
pages) but not rationalwiki: (
~6,000 <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Statistics> content pages).
The latter was
rejected<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInterwiki_m…
ago. Application of the subjective criteria seems to be hit-or-miss.
If we're going to have a hyper-inclusionist system of canonical interwiki
prefixes <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Canonical_interwiki_prefixes>, we
might want to use WikiApiary and/or WikiIndex rather than
MediaWiki.org as
the venue. These wikis that already have a page for every wiki could add
another field for interwiki prefix to those templates and manage the
interwiki prefixes by editing pages. Thingles
said<https://wikiapiary.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThingles&d…
be interested in WikiApiary's getting involved. The only downside is
that WikiApiary doesn't have non-MediaWiki wikis. It
sounded<http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Leucosticte&d…
though Mark Dilley might be interested in WikiIndex's playing some
role
in this too. But even WikiIndex has the problem of only containing wikis;
the table will have to have other websites as well.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l