Category talk:Opt out

There is no harm in keeping this category. It's true that we don't need a wiki's permission to list it. It's true that no one seems to have opted out so far. Still, that doesn't mean that we can't respect the wishes of a wiki which asks not to be listed in this index. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad idea. I can imagine wikis made by companies or studentgroups, who would rather not have people looking to deeply to into what there doing. For example, a Dutch wiki I tried to add of a businessgroup had a secure tag in it, that did not allow me to add them to Wikiindex. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should we respect those companies', student groups', etc. wishes, over the wishes of those who want to look deeply into what those wikis are doing? Leucosticte (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Because we can. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

...Which is an argument that can be raised for not respecting it as well, since we can do that too. My question wasn't what we can do, but what we should do and why. Leucosticte (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If a user of a wiki feels it not to there benefit to have their wiki added to wikiindex and run the risk of it being archived, it would be a decent act to remove it for them. These would be mostly business, student and personal wikis. Wikis with a highly personal use that wouldn't normally show up. Besides it would give someone the possibility of expressing grievances and that is always a positive thing. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

By "archived" you mean stored someplace like the Internet Archive? If so, that can be prevented through robots.txt. Basically it sounds like you're saying we should help them achieve security through obscurity (or maybe just plain old obscurity). But if that's what they wanted, why leave their site open for anyone to visit, when they could have prevented access?

At any rate, it's probably not all that important, seeing as no one bothered to opt out. However, it could become important if we were to start having articles that were critical of certain wikis or wiki people, because then the subjects of those articles would probably be more inclined to opt out of WikiIndex coverage. The question of how much criticism of that sort will be allowed is another open question. Leucosticte (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason we should include this option is plain human stupidity. Robot txts, secure-texts and private servers are all options, but someone might implement them wrongly and sees that someone has added there wiki to this site. If I where the owner of a discussion wiki concerning, for example real estate or marketprices and I find out that by a mistake the r-txt isn't implemented right, I would feel uncomfortable, knowing competition can check out my wiki 15 years after date. I am not sure what you mean to say with your second post. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There were at least three wikis in this category at one time, looks like they got deleted. This category was created because people wanted to opt out. ~~ MarkDilley

It would be a good idea to keep it and allow people to request the deletion of their wiki. I can imagine someone sending there lawyer at wikiindex, or trying to delete there wiki manually. Allowing them to request deletion would allow Wikiindex to get into a dialoque with the wikiowner and work towards a solution. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 Support ~~ MarkDilley