[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki, wishes to become a wiki project

[michael_irwin at verizon.net]

Benjamin Webb wrote:

>It is a few days since Tim wrote this comment, but I still have something to
>say in reply to it. Before I start I must remind people that it was my
>fellow Rodovid user Baya who wrote the software, but that doesn't make much
>difference to the discussion.
>
>Tim suggested setting up Rodovid as an independent project, and although I
>still prefer the idea of it becoming a Wikimedia project, this is a possible
>alternative.
>
>The one real issue is the matter of linking from Wikipedia and other
>Wikimedia projects to Rodovid. If it did become a Wikimedia project, then
>nobody would object to this: we could use link boxes like we currently have
>for commons etc.
>
>But what if the project is run independently, could any linking be done
>then. Personally as a Wikipedia contributor myself, I feel having such links
>would add to the quality of an article. However, I am sure others would
>disagree with this and delete it as spam linking.
>
>What do subsricbers to the mailing list think about linking?
>  
>

If you are using Wikimedia compatible software and/or public editing 
techniques I would encourage applicable sections of Wikiversity to link 
to your material.

I would encourage you to find several other high quality similar 
projects online and come to Wikiversity and write some generic materials 
in related educational areas using links to all other applicable online 
resources.   At the moment we are pending official approval and 
apparently caught up in the middle of the Wikimedia Foundations internal 
reorganization efforts so wikiversity.org is inactive.   Try starting 
at:  http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity.

Some spam linkers are currently enjoying some success at Wikiversity 
primarily due to the scarcity of local content and scaffolding.  I am 
confident that as our web traffic picks in a permanent URL space and our 
generic quality is fleshed out these links are going to begin 
disappearing rapidly.

The large advantage I perceive to this approach is that it will allow 
you to keep your site focused on what you and/or your community wish it 
be while enhancing the experience of both Wikiversity participants and 
your site users.  It will take a bit more work on your part initially 
and patience waiting for Wikiversity participants interested in 
geneology to get around to your few links among many but there should be 
no large maintenance effort as there would be if the Wikiversity 
participants begin to perceive your links as spam and delete them.

Perhaps some of our biological or medically literate people (user:JWSurf 
is highly qualified and has been approachable in the past) could suggest 
learning portals related to genetics, biology, evolution, etc. where 
participants would find online detailed geneological information useful 
in demonstrating that science applies to human beings as well as the 
rest of the ecosystem.

Another approach might be to publish an introduction to geneology in 
general at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page.   Our Wikiversitians 
are likely to find your efforts there.  If your site is referenced in 
the book or used for specific data  illustrating various techniques then 
your links should be secure from most of the less militant link police.

OTOH I am not familar with Wikibooks policy as I tend to use their 
materials in a read only or trivial correction mode at the moment.  You 
probably will wish to review their detailed policies before investing 
any marketing effort there.

regards,
lazyquasar