If I might weigh in here, I don't see the harm in including all the WMF wikis onto the interwiki map.
MediaWiki is intensely related to the WMF, so those links make logical sense and it does no harm to include them in my opinion.
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:40:37 -0500 From: nathanlarson3141@gmail.com To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes
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. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l