On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, This, that and the other < at.light@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: (~4,000http://www.wikichristian.org/index.php?title=Special:Statisticscontent pages) but not rationalwiki: ( ~6,000 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Statistics content pages). The latter was rejectedhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInterwiki_map&diff=4573672&oldid=4572621awhile 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 saidhttps://wikiapiary.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThingles&diff=409395&oldid=408940he'd be interested in WikiApiary's getting involved. The only downside is that WikiApiary doesn't have non-MediaWiki wikis. It soundedhttp://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Leucosticte&diff=prev&oldid=144256as 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.