trivia makes me thinks about "wikia" platforms and similar. I also read 
discussions where people promoted a bigger interactions with wikia. They 
suggested for example that a iink at the end of the pages of toons or series to 
wikia webpages would be not so bad, even if it is not 100% reliable it's what 
readers would use to go further in many cases. This way people would know also 
where  to recycle "leftovers". Few users are even both on wiki and wikia (or 
similar projects, sometimes more serious than pop culture, for example 
vexilology). 
Someone even wrote "deletionism" is in the main interest of people who own 
shares those websites :). 
I confess that I had to search in the past for detailed information about a TV 
series for example and maybe I regretted a little bit that there was no space, 
free of ads, on our wiki-ecosystem, for that. To me they could be as important 
as wikivoyage (not an insult to voyage, just thinking as a reader here).
But in general I didn't care too much about this issue of "keeping more 
different stuff" because when I think abut it "linearly" this looks to me like 
something that is not an important strategical challenge in perspective. IMHO 
our priority should be keeping what is worth now. We're not even sure about 
this goal.



    Il Mercoledì 12 Ottobre 2016 12:22, Peter Southwood 
<peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> ha scritto:
 

 I agree. 
There is a lot of information that could be provided for and by people who are 
interested in trivia (I am not using the term derogatively - just couldn’t 
think of a better one). 
Cheers,
P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Alessandro Marchetti
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 11:40 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

I agree with Anders. About the issue of weak/bad/irrelevant/border-line content 
management. I don't care about that specific project although I do support 
plurality in any case.
But "not wasting" material and HRs is a key issue. For all platforms. At the 
moment I would strongly encourage at least to use all the "tools" we have 
already at their maximum potential, which we are not doing. These include:
1) a better knowledge of all wiki platforms and how they work.Try to avoid that 
paternalism that some wikipeda users show off when they decide a priori 
something is not even worth transferring. It's quite snob. We have many 
projects and sometimes transferring content is not so difficult. Even if you 
delete pokemon articles a book about pokemons on wikibooks is still a good 
thing to have. And that recipe in a food article maybe deserves more than just 
be cut off.
2) support an extensive use of draft space and a correct management of all 
drafts. And a bigger tolerance for draft spaces in general. Don't stress people 
on that, there are always better things to do than "harassing" people about 
stuff in sandboxes and drafts. Next time you want to do something like that, 
don't and work on the main namespace. And see yourself if things are in the end 
better or worse globally. Some of these problems just require time. You wait 
and sources arrive.  
3) a better information sharing with the projects. This always annoys me, these 
long-term wiki users that rarely inform any project or usually the lest 
competent one about an Afd or a warning. And when you do inform people around 
and you show that other users disagree with a rigid deletion procedure and 
they're willing to help or similar they never thank you, and never learn. They 
play their little game and they have never understood after years that wiki is 
about sharing knowledge. Not about deleting a content as fast as possible 
because "I know how the world works". No, you DON'T. Sometimes these rigid 
deletionists are pushing for the road that allows a fast deletion per se, not 
because this makes the life of editors simpler. I'm convinced because fo that 
we pay a price as a community that is much bigger than the "embarrassment" of 
leaving on the main namespace for few days or weeks an improper article that 
most of the time almost noone visits. I did many lists of all articles that 
needed revision (unedited by human users in years, for example) and in every 
platform there's always plenty of stuff that was much more critical and people 
missed for years, including hoaxes. Because they were spending too much time 
copy-pasting the same links or comments in order to delete the article of the 
last minor actor or mid-sized company whose presence doesn't really make any 
difference in the perception of our overall quality.
4) efficient article connectivity. Make article-lists for example. Encourage to 
group content with a rationale. You can prevent a lot of useless "spin off" in 
many cases.
If you start to apply this good practices,  you can reduce the number of 
critical cases (and "social" consequences) by a double digit. Only at that 
point I would ask for additional solutions. Because If after so many years we 
can't even do that, I think we still have better things than worrying or making 
fun about forks.

 

    Il Mercoledì 12 Ottobre 2016 10:31, Peter Southwood 
<peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> ha scritto:
 

 Wikitrivia?
Cheers,
P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anders Wennersten
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2016 12:16 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

I think this initiative point to a weakness in our approach, that is worth 
discussing, independent if just this will be anything or not.

In our version we have somewhat lower quality demand then enwp, and we can also 
be more pragmatic and handle cases individually, but still one of our most 
recurrent discussion is on how we handle articles that is too 
weak/bad/irrelevant to be allowed into our articlespace but still not are 
rubbish. We have looked into 1)enwp alteranative with a draft space, 2) to have 
special signals to engage editor willing to work on these, 3) to give it back 
to the user who put it into Wikipedia with text explaining what is the problem, 
4) different type of templates, 5)and have special pages where these can be 
discussed.

Some of these (and pragmatism and good mentors) help a little bit, but does not 
solve the basic issue, that users create articles (not being
rubbish) that is not allowed into our article space, which makes them very 
disappointed (angry)

Anders

Den 2016-10-11 kl. 11:58, skrev Peter Southwood:
> Competition is healthy, it can be useful to test alternatives and separate 
> out the ones that work from the ones that don’t. However I think Starlords 
> may be one that doesn’t work and may bring down the project prematurely. I 
> will watch in case they develop anything actually useful - who knows...
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Craig Franklin
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:48 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic
>
> So what you're saying is, Vox Day has created a "safe space" where his circle 
> of friends can reinforce each other's biases without interference from the 
> outside world?  Great.
>
> Also, "Starlords".  Good grief.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 11 October 2016 at 04:13, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>>
>> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
>> Announcement: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-
>> infogalactic.html
>> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13187 - Release Date: 
> 10/10/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13187 - Release Date: 10/10/16


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

  
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13193 - Release Date: 10/12/16


   
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to