On 02/05/07, Jonathan Stokes <jonathanwstokes(a)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.