It occurs to me that many fictional worlds have superb wikis devoted to them over in Wikia. These Wikis are often doing exactly what we're trying to avoid doing in Wikipedia - providing large amounts of in- universe information.
May I humbly suggest that articles on topics that are covered by such Wikia should have boxes at the bottom similar to the Wikiquote boxes that direct users to these wikis for an in-universe perspective. That is to say, clear, featured links to other projects that host the information we've decided isn't suitable for Wikipedia. (Noting that the reason for its unsuitability has nothing to do with its reliability, and everything to do with our focus.)
Obviously this involves a bit of a paradigm shift, in that we would be linking to projects that are not, strictly speaking, sister projects. But if we're serious about moving this stuff out of Wikipedia (And I sincerely believe we should be serious about it if we want to have high-quality out-of-universe articles on Wikipedia, since to date nobody has managed to write an article that does both) we need to provide the people who use Wikipedia for this sort of information a clear alternative - not "go away and find somewhere else," but "go to this project over here."
Are there any reasons someone with a good knowledge of template-fu shouldn't whip something like this up?
-Phil
I like this idea a lot. Just an external link to a more relevant wiki isn't really as attention-getting as it should be if people really want to know more.
On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that many fictional worlds have superb wikis devoted to them over in Wikia. These Wikis are often doing exactly what we're trying to avoid doing in Wikipedia - providing large amounts of in- universe information.
May I humbly suggest that articles on topics that are covered by such Wikia should have boxes at the bottom similar to the Wikiquote boxes that direct users to these wikis for an in-universe perspective. That is to say, clear, featured links to other projects that host the information we've decided isn't suitable for Wikipedia. (Noting that the reason for its unsuitability has nothing to do with its reliability, and everything to do with our focus.)
Obviously this involves a bit of a paradigm shift, in that we would be linking to projects that are not, strictly speaking, sister projects. But if we're serious about moving this stuff out of Wikipedia (And I sincerely believe we should be serious about it if we want to have high-quality out-of-universe articles on Wikipedia, since to date nobody has managed to write an article that does both) we need to provide the people who use Wikipedia for this sort of information a clear alternative - not "go away and find somewhere else," but "go to this project over here."
Are there any reasons someone with a good knowledge of template-fu shouldn't whip something like this up?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/13/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I like this idea a lot. Just an external link to a more relevant wiki isn't really as attention-getting as it should be if people really want to know more.
In general, we should be more selective with what external links we provide, and how we present them. We should distinguish between:
- Sources of the information in the article - Sites that are more informative than the article (particularly where the article is very short) - Sites that represent some example of what is described in the article (eg, a ski resort, for an article about ski resorts...) - Community/portal/forum sites, where people may want to go if they're really interested in the topic..
I have no objection to us providing a link to Johnny's Sk8boarding Forumz, but it shouldn't be mixed in with other, more "encyclopaedic" links...
Steve
I'd rather keep all the forums out of external links, unless they're for a forum we have an article about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided (#10)
On 11/26/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I like this idea a lot. Just an external link to a more relevant wiki isn't really as attention-getting as it should be if people really want to know more.
In general, we should be more selective with what external links we provide, and how we present them. We should distinguish between:
- Sources of the information in the article
- Sites that are more informative than the article (particularly where
the article is very short)
- Sites that represent some example of what is described in the
article (eg, a ski resort, for an article about ski resorts...)
- Community/portal/forum sites, where people may want to go if they're
really interested in the topic..
I have no objection to us providing a link to Johnny's Sk8boarding Forumz, but it shouldn't be mixed in with other, more "encyclopaedic" links...
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
In general, we should be more selective with what external links we provide, and how we present them.
We already do.
We should distinguish between:
- Sources of the information in the article
These should be placed in the References section, not the External links one.
- Sites that are more informative than the article (particularly where
the article is very short)
- Sites that represent some example of what is described in the
article (eg, a ski resort, for an article about ski resorts...)
These should be in the External links section.
- Community/portal/forum sites, where people may want to go if they're
really interested in the topic..
These should generally not be included.
On 27/11/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
- Community/portal/forum sites, where people may want to go if they're
really interested in the topic..
These should generally not be included.
There are exceptions, e.g. *the* forum on an obscure subject.
- d.
On 11/28/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
- Sources of the information in the article
These should be placed in the References section, not the External links one.
Is this actually in the policy? At least once I've seen someone move links I've placed in the Sources section into the External Links section.
(did I mention that I strongly support renaming "References" and "External links" to "Sources" and "Further reading" respectively?)
- Sites that are more informative than the article (particularly where
the article is very short)
- Sites that represent some example of what is described in the
article (eg, a ski resort, for an article about ski resorts...)
These should be in the External links section.
Which frequently becomes an unmitigated spamfest. There should be ways to avoid this.
- Community/portal/forum sites, where people may want to go if they're
really interested in the topic..
These should generally not be included.
To play devil's advocate, aren't we trying to be informative? Should we be keeping genuine sources of information away from our readers? If the topic is "Juggling in Copenhagen", then wouldn't a forum for jugglers in Copenhagen be a really appropriate link?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 11/28/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
- Sources of the information in the article
These should be placed in the References section, not the External links one.
Is this actually in the policy? At least once I've seen someone move links I've placed in the Sources section into the External Links section.
Last time I checked [[Wikipedia:External links]] it was the guidance offered.
- Sites that are more informative than the article (particularly where
the article is very short)
- Sites that represent some example of what is described in the
article (eg, a ski resort, for an article about ski resorts...)
These should be in the External links section.
Which frequently becomes an unmitigated spamfest. There should be ways to avoid this.
Last time I checked [[Wikipedia:External links]] it offered guidance on avoiding that.
- Community/portal/forum sites, where people may want to go if they're
really interested in the topic..
These should generally not be included.
To play devil's advocate, aren't we trying to be informative? Should we be keeping genuine sources of information away from our readers? If the topic is "Juggling in Copenhagen", then wouldn't a forum for jugglers in Copenhagen be a really appropriate link?
Last time I checked [[Wikipedia:External links]] it offered guidance to the effect that we consider linking to an open source web directory rather than to links for forums, personal homepages and blogs which, whilst relevant to the article subject, aren't relevant to the article itself. Lines get drawn where consensus forms.
On 11/29/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is this actually in the policy? At least once I've seen someone move links I've placed in the Sources section into the External Links section.
Last time I checked [[Wikipedia:External links]] it was the guidance offered.
You're right; I'm out of date.
Last time I checked [[Wikipedia:External links]] it offered guidance to the effect that we consider linking to an open source web directory rather than to links for forums, personal homepages and blogs which, whilst relevant to the article subject, aren't relevant to the article itself. Lines get drawn where consensus forms.
Oh yeah. That's actually a better solution.
Steve
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Obviously this involves a bit of a paradigm shift, in that we would be linking to projects that are not, strictly speaking, sister projects.
I'm not sure it'd be a good idea to use "official-looking" link templates like the ones for Wikisource etc. to link to projects that don't operate under the fundamental policies of Wikipedia like that. I suspect it'll blur the line between NPOV/Verifiable/non-original-research Wikipedia content and whatever content standards they've got over there.
A set of templates with a different look-and-feel and perhaps an appropriate disclaimer, on the other hand, might be better. We often already have plain old external links anyway, though, so I'm not sure it's needed.
On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:03 AM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
A set of templates with a different look-and-feel and perhaps an appropriate disclaimer, on the other hand, might be better. We often already have plain old external links anyway, though, so I'm not sure it's needed.
I think there's an important line to be drawn between an external link and those boxes, though. The external link clearly demarcates its contents as something that isn't in Wikipedia. Something like a Wikiquote link, on the other hand, serves as a sort of extension of the article.
I want to treat the fan-centric links as extensions, because it's clear that many editors and many readers expect that material to be in Wikipedia. And so we shouldn't just say "Go away." Or even "Go somewhere else." We should say "Look, here's where we've found that gives you this sort of information." And we should make that easy and well-integrated into our overall organization and navigation, because there's clearly demand for it.
I don't see the issue of those sites not having NPOV or V - neither Wikiquote nor Wikinews have similar verification standards in practical place to Wikipedia, for instance. I think we shouldn't link to articles that suck or don't add anything. That seems to me to be a case-by-case decision, though.
-Phil
On 11/13/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:03 AM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
A set of templates with a different look-and-feel and perhaps an appropriate disclaimer, on the other hand, might be better. We often already have plain old external links anyway, though, so I'm not sure it's needed.
I think there's an important line to be drawn between an external link and those boxes, though. The external link clearly demarcates its contents as something that isn't in Wikipedia. Something like a Wikiquote link, on the other hand, serves as a sort of extension of the article.
I want to treat the fan-centric links as extensions, because it's clear that many editors and many readers expect that material to be in Wikipedia. And so we shouldn't just say "Go away." Or even "Go somewhere else." We should say "Look, here's where we've found that gives you this sort of information." And we should make that easy and well-integrated into our overall organization and navigation, because there's clearly demand for it.
Seems to me the natural solution is to start up a Wikimedia project for free information on fictional universes.
Anthony
On 13/11/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Seems to me the natural solution is to start up a Wikimedia project for free information on fictional universes.
Ficipedia?
On 11/13/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's an important line to be drawn between an external link and those boxes, though. The external link clearly demarcates its contents as something that isn't in Wikipedia. Something like a Wikiquote link, on the other hand, serves as a sort of extension of the article.
Well, the Wikiquote link is to a Wikimedia project, while the Wikia links would obviously not be; giving links to sister projects more prominent placement is uncontroversial at least partially *because* they're sister projects.
Kirill Lokshin schrieb:
On 11/13/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's an important line to be drawn between an external link and those boxes, though. The external link clearly demarcates its contents as something that isn't in Wikipedia. Something like a Wikiquote link, on the other hand, serves as a sort of extension of the article.
Well, the Wikiquote link is to a Wikimedia project, while the Wikia links would obviously not be; giving links to sister projects more prominent placement is uncontroversial at least partially *because* they're sister projects.
ähm sisters an brothers. but wikia is the projekt of our benevolent godlike father jimbo ?
HeinzJ
On 11/26/06, HeinzJ h-j.luecking@t-online.de wrote:
ähm sisters an brothers. but wikia is the projekt of our benevolent godlike father jimbo ?
so what? I think the distinction between Wikimedia Foundation projects and Wikia Inc. projects cannot be overemphasized. This are two completely separate entities. Michael
HeinzJ
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/13/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that many fictional worlds have superb wikis devoted to them over in Wikia. These Wikis are often doing exactly what we're trying to avoid doing in Wikipedia - providing large amounts of in- universe information.
True. Wikimedia is also strongly committed to free content, and so is Wikia. But so are other wikis which are not hosted on Wikia, such as Wikitravel. It would be unfair to prefer Wikia specifically. However, it would make sense, in my opinion, to build a network of free content websites. Fortunately there's already a definition we can use to identify those:
http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition
Essentially, we could make a policy that any relevant external resource that meets the Free Content Definition may be linked in a more visible place than non-free resource. Going a bit beyond free licensing, we could also require that the site at least make complete dumps available on a regular basis, to enable community migration.
/me is trying not to think about how Erik just promoted his own website
In any case, I thought a while back that if Wikia had all these wikis, then all the unsourced highly specific details could be exiled to these wikis. It sounded like a good idea.
On 11/13/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 11/13/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that many fictional worlds have superb wikis devoted to them over in Wikia. These Wikis are often doing exactly what we're trying to avoid doing in Wikipedia - providing large amounts of in- universe information.
True. Wikimedia is also strongly committed to free content, and so is Wikia. But so are other wikis which are not hosted on Wikia, such as Wikitravel. It would be unfair to prefer Wikia specifically. However, it would make sense, in my opinion, to build a network of free content websites. Fortunately there's already a definition we can use to identify those:
http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition
Essentially, we could make a policy that any relevant external resource that meets the Free Content Definition may be linked in a more visible place than non-free resource. Going a bit beyond free licensing, we could also require that the site at least make complete dumps available on a regular basis, to enable community migration.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Nov 13, 2006, at 6:35 AM, James Hare wrote:
/me is trying not to think about how Erik just promoted his own website
In any case, I thought a while back that if Wikia had all these wikis, then all the unsourced highly specific details could be exiled to these wikis. It sounded like a good idea.
Well, or better yet, the sourced ones - most of the stuff we're talking about is pulled from the episodes or novels, and is totally accurate.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On 11/13/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Essentially, we could make a policy that any relevant external resource that meets the Free Content Definition may be linked in a more visible place than non-free resource. Going a bit beyond free licensing, we could also require that the site at least make complete dumps available on a regular basis, to enable community migration.
Would could but we have enough spam already from free content projects.
On Nov 13, 2006, at 7:47 AM, geni wrote:
On 11/13/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Essentially, we could make a policy that any relevant external resource that meets the Free Content Definition may be linked in a more visible place than non-free resource. Going a bit beyond free licensing, we could also require that the site at least make complete dumps available on a regular basis, to enable community migration.
Would could but we have enough spam already from free content projects.
What if we had a sentence like "links are not appropriate to articles that do not add substantial and quality information about the subject that is outside the purview of Wikipedia."
-Phil
On 11/13/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What if we had a sentence like "links are not appropriate to articles that do not add substantial and quality information about the subject that is outside the purview of Wikipedia."
-Phil
Doesn't help much. As soon as you have a template people are going to start slapping it all over the place. Remember last.fm?
On Nov 13, 2006, at 9:45 AM, geni wrote:
On 11/13/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What if we had a sentence like "links are not appropriate to articles that do not add substantial and quality information about the subject that is outside the purview of Wikipedia."
-Phil
Doesn't help much. As soon as you have a template people are going to start slapping it all over the place. Remember last.fm?
Well, yes - but when it's slapped places that suck, it gets removed. I can't imagine that the end situation for the pop culture articles will be worse than the starting situation.
-Phil
On 13/11/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously this involves a bit of a paradigm shift, in that we would be linking to projects that are not, strictly speaking, sister projects. But if we're serious about moving this stuff out of Wikipedia (And I sincerely believe we should be serious about it if we want to have high-quality out-of-universe articles on Wikipedia, since to date nobody has managed to write an article that does both) we need to provide the people who use Wikipedia for this sort of information a clear alternative - not "go away and find somewhere else," but "go to this project over here."
Out of interest, do we do anything like this for Memory Alpha?
On 11/13/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Out of interest, do we do anything like this for Memory Alpha?
There's a {{template|Memoryalpha}}, but that makes things regular external links.
I think at least Memory Alpha is of sufficient quality that we could do this box thing. It would also help focus in-universe writing energy there. I got into a spectacular disagreement with someone on a talk page yesterday regarding Star Trek : got accused of "blasphemy" for daring to suggest that non-canon material should be allowed near the canon material, and for noting that we need to cite episodes. We can't be having with this sort of thing.
On Nov 13, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
Out of interest, do we do anything like this for Memory Alpha?
Currently, no. This would make a bit of an exception to my exceptions, though - normally I would not be inclined to link to something that we can't transclude the in-universe information into. But Memory Alpha is so established and of such quality that I'm tempted to advocate linking to them anyway. But they pose additional problems.
-Phil