WikiIndex talk:What is a WikiIndex entry?

Language

Tone I've noticed that here the tone is sometimes more conversational than encyclopedic and I like that. I think we should encourage more discussion like this but make it clear that we don't exist to denigrate or promote any particular wiki. Does that make sense? Koavf (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, describing WikiIndex entries as "encyclopedic" is problematic. However, beyond that, an "entry" should be distinguished from discussion of an entry. The latter belongs on the attached Discussion page. On the other hand, Discussion pages are often considered to be only about working on the content of the Index page.

This is a clear conflict: informal discussion is not encyclopedic. Opinion is not encyclopedia unless attributed (typically to a notable person, but in a totally inclusive encyclopedia, opinion would still be attributed even if the person isn't notable). Encyclopedic information should be verifiable.

On Wikiversity, we handle the problem by creating subpages. Discussion pages *may* be used to discuss the topic, rather than simply improving the content of the Resource. We allow linking to discussion pages, sometimes calling them "seminars." We allow owned subpages, i.e., pages attributed as the opinion, point of view, original research, of a named user, who is then, defacto, given administrative power over the page. (Basically, such open ownership is accepted, and someone revert warring with such an "owner" is likely to be warned. But it almost never happens. In fact, I can't think of any recent example.)

So there is WikiIndex proper, mainspace, and it's primarily about wikis. However, then, "Wikipeople." Okay, we allow such entries. What are the standards? And if we are going to discuss people, we open the door to an area known to generate conflict. Conflict causes loss of participation. There are users who, when they see high conflict, will simply leave. Most women, by the way, are like that. (There are certainly exceptions!) But it's not just women, either. Wikis have often avoided addressing the issues, because it's difficult. So they continue to make ad hoc decisions, and some long-time wiki users are inured to conflict, they consider it part of what is attractive -- to them -- about wikis.

However, Wikiversity demonstrates that a wiki can be very active with very low conflict. What it has taken is defacto policies and practices that avoid setting up the conditions for conflict. I'm proud to have been a part of that. Conflict on Wikiversity is almost never about content, it's about people, about users and administrators. On Wikipedia, the same, except that there is a constant creation of conflict over content, coming out of how the wiki developed. Wiki labor is cheap, i.e., not valued. --Abd (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not very sanguine on the idea discussion belongs on main pages, and even the discussion pages can turn into massive slapfights, but if we must do this, then putting it in it's own area seems like a fair compromise. Arcane (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Discussion" is probably the wrong word to use, since in the wikisphere that word has a particular meaning distinct from the kinds of commentary that would appear on mainspace pages. Leucosticte (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The page is called, in MediaWiki, the Talk page, but then it's displayed, commonly, as Discussion. On Wikiversity, we do allow some level of discussion on mainspace pages, but it should be signed. Otherwise someone needs to fix it in some way. More often, in a resource that is developed, there is no signed material in the mainspace page, because none of it is apparent opinion. Now, it might actually be opinion, but this is what editors work out. So, more often, opinion shows up on the Talk page attached, and the tradition is to sign things there. It's attributed. If that becomes a problem, on Wikiversity, we create subpages. If people are having a flame war, as an admin, I'd separate them. Because subpages can be created with -- say in this case -- Abd's opinion about or experience with RationalWiki which could be RationalWiki/Abd, then that page is intrinsically my opinion. If that opinion is harmful to the wiki, or wrong, or whatever, that can be pointed out on Talk:RationalWiki/Abd. And I can, if I like, ignore that commentary and so can most users. But I would not allow users to change my opinion page without my consent. (The page would have a notice at the top that this is my essay.) There could be a whole family of these. I'm saying from experience that this does not create major flame wars, the opposite. Every position can be fully expressed, as long as it, itself, is not harmful to the wiki or illegal. Most people just say what they have to say and then stop. I.e., given a context where there is nothing to fight over, they stop fighting. Exceptions are rare and become quite obvious. A need for admin interference is rare.

That such opinion pages exist about a wiki can be shown on the index page. On Wikiversity, we neutrally link them from mainspace resources. "There is discussion of this wiki on /subpage name." If there is more than one such subpage, we may create an essay subpage to link to all of them. Like all WMF wikis, Wikiversity has a neutrality policy, only we handle it through inclusion and organization rather than through the Wikipedian attempt to exclude what is not Neutral Point of View. It is that encyclopedic goal which leads to endless conflict. --Abd (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Defaming or promoting

"Entries in WikiIndex shouldn't exist for the sole purpose of defaming or promoting a site, though: this is neither free hosting space for other wiki communities nor is it a message board for gripes and sniping about problems with other wikis." What is the solution when one encounters a listing that solely defames or promotes a site? Deletion so that the page can be rewritten from scratch, or editing to add balancing information so that other points of view have due weight? Leucosticte (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion I'd imagine that we should rewrite before delete because if nothing else maybe an infobox would be correct. I would play fast and loose with tone--this isn't an academic encyclopedia or a newspaper, so we don't have to have professional writing. Koavf (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem with deletion is that it hides the material from users. Revision deletion is avoided on Wikipedia because it can create suspicion of censorship. However, page deletion does the same. Traditionally, on Wikipedia, anyone can get deleted page content by request to an administrator, if the administrator is willing to serve in this way. However, L. was a proponent of WP:PWD, pure wiki deletion, which is blanking with a note. (And possibly protection.) It was a great idea that Wikipedia ignored. If there is a wiki page here, with problematic content, normally it would seem that it could be blanked as an immediate action. It could be replaced with a speedy deletion tag. A simple infobox might be substituted.

One of the problems is lack of rapid attention to speedy deletion tags. Wikis work well when there are administrators who regularly watch for such. They work well when there are process pages to handle specific kinds of requests. (And admins can have those pages watchlisted and receive email notifications.) An admin, seeing a speedy deletion tag, should ideally make a decision: remove the tag, delete, or refer the topic for discussion. Generally, any user may remove a speedy deletion tag -- not necessarily anonymous users --, but there is then, on Wikiversity, and other wikis, a "proposed deletion" tag, and those tags are not to be removed by a page creator. There are various ways of handling the situation, but *efficiency is important.* On Wikiversity, we have many alternatives to deletion. As an example that might apply here, if I see an inappropriate wiki listing, I *could* move it to user space. That leaves it visible. It turns out that people don't get nearly as upset by a page move like that as they do about deletion!

If I see what I consider inappropriate discussion of a wiki or wikiperson, I could move it to the Talk page, or create a subpage with attribution to the author. The real issue, though, is how much detail we want to encourage on WikiIndex.

I don't know if WikiIndex has RevHide available. It should. Some content should not remain visible to the public. Outing is an example. Libel can be one. RevHide provides an alternative to page deletion.

Rewrite is the classic solution (WP:SOFIXIT). However, it can be a lot of work. It's quick to blank a page and it leaves the content available. Then there can be discussion and possible compromise. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2015‎

I have to concur with Abd on this one. Arcane (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)