If there is consensus that there is no deliberate InterWiki Map favoritism, then the only concern is to prevent the appearance of InterWiki Map favoritism. This could be accomplished by clearer criteria for InterWiki Map inclusion.
For instance, a short paragraph at the top of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map could do the trick. In fact, a simple paragraph of explanation is currently curiously absent from the InterWiki Map.
I'll take a shot in the dark here:
INTERWIKI MAP CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION:
"The InterWiki Map exists to allow a more efficient syntax for linking between wikis, and thus promote the cooperation and proliferation of wikis providing free information on the internet. Sites considered for inclusion should probably 1) be a wiki 2) be a free content site 3) be reasonably developed 4) be trusted not to produce spam links and 5) provide a clear and relevant value to the mediawiki community.
The process for determining inclusion is similar to [[AfD.]] Members of the community may present pro's and con's, with a Meta administrator determining consensus and acting accordingly.
Sites included in the InterWiki Map are considered to be trusted sites by the MediaWiki community and thus "nofollow" is removed from InterWiki links."
A short paragraph like the above could be sufficient to assuage the concerns of those who suspect Wikipedia/Wikia nepotism. This sort of fix may be all that is necessary to quell concerns of a Nefarious Wikia Conspiracy!
On 02/05/07, Jonathan Stokes jonathanwstokes@gmail.com wrote:
For instance, a short paragraph at the top of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map could do the trick. In fact, a simple paragraph of explanation is currently curiously absent from the InterWiki Map.
The talk page has some criteria:
I'll take a shot in the dark here: INTERWIKI MAP CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION:
I'll rearrange those into the order I'd like things to go in. Note the push for magic nofollow powers for free content.
"The InterWiki Map exists to allow a more efficient syntax for linking between wikis, and thus promote the cooperation and proliferation of wikis providing free information on the internet. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness to the Wikimedia projects (2) be trusted not to facilitate spam links (3) be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) (4) be a wiki (5) be reasonably developed."
The process for determining inclusion is similar to [[AfD.]] Members of the community may present pro's and con's, with a Meta administrator determining consensus and acting accordingly.
I'd say just make it "should be submitted on the talk page and will be decided on by a Meta admin." Note that it's much harder to become a Meta admin than an en:wp admin, and they have a term of a year.
I'd word your other para:
"Sites included in the InterWiki Map are considered by the Wikimedia community to be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to Wikimedia projects, and thus "nofollow" is removed from InterWiki links."
A short paragraph like the above could be sufficient to assuage the concerns of those who suspect Wikipedia/Wikia nepotism. This sort of fix may be all that is necessary to quell concerns of a Nefarious Wikia Conspiracy!
Sounds good to me.
This is, of course, not an en:wp matter at all. Foundation-l and meta are the places (and it'd need to be both) to discuss this.
- d.
On 02/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, Jonathan Stokes jonathanwstokes@gmail.com wrote:
For instance, a short paragraph at the top of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map could do the trick. In fact, a simple paragraph of explanation is currently curiously absent from the InterWiki Map.
The talk page has some criteria:
I forgot to list the criteria!
The associated page is used by the Mediawiki software to add and remove interwiki link prefixes (such as [[w:blah]] to "blah" on Wikipedia). Any meta administrator can edit the interwiki map.
Please post comments to the appropriate section below (Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting, or Other discussions); read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Completed requests are moved to the archives (current).
Proposed additions: This section is for proposing a new interwiki link prefix; add new entries at the bottom of the section. When requesting a new prefix, please explain why it would be useful. Interwiki prefixes should be reserved for websites that would be useful on a significant number of pages. Websites useful only to a few pages should be linked to with the usual external link syntax. Please don't propose addtions of sites with too few pages or that contains copyright infringing content, such as YouTube.
Proposed removals: This section is for proposing that a prefix be disabled; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to explain why it should be disabled, particularly in view of the difficulty involved in correcting any use of the prefix. Completed requests are marked with {{done}} or {{not done}} and moved to the archives.
- d.
On 02/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, Jonathan Stokes jonathanwstokes@gmail.com wrote:
I've just asked about this on m:Talk:Interwiki map -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map#Inclusion_criteria_clarifi...
- d.
Most of the sites on the interwiki map should be wikis; however, there are present some useful prefixes that don't meet this criteria, and it would be a shame to remove them (google, cache, sourceforge, and possibly a few others). Beyond that, though, I think you're on the right track.
David Gerard wrote:
"The InterWiki Map exists to allow a more efficient syntax for linking between wikis, and thus promote the cooperation and proliferation of wikis providing free information on the internet. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness to the Wikimedia projects (2) be trusted not to facilitate spam links (3) be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) (4) be a wiki (5) be reasonably developed."