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: nathanlarson3...@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.li...@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_map&diff=4573672&oldid=4572621>awhile > 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&diff=409395&oldid=408940>he'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&diff=prev&oldid=144256>as > 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 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
