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.