WikiIndex talk:Inclusion policy

Wikis to exclude from listing

So, it seems to me there are a few options that have been presented:

1. Include all wikis
2. Include all wikis except those that fall into certain narrowly defined categories, e.g. "content advocating adult-child sexual relations"
3. Include all wikis except those that fall into certain broadly defined categories, e.g. "content that would reflect poorly on WikiIndex if WikiIndex linked to it"

I think that options #1 is preferable, and #2 would be my second choice since it would leave less room for sysop discretion. When sysops have discretion to delete pages based on their subjective interpretations of what the rules require to be excluded, often it is hard to hold them accountable. The user who originally created the page may be gone from the wiki by then, and no one else may remember what the page said or care enough about it to raise a fuss. Especially in the case of dead wikis that don't appear on Google searches (but may still be available in the Internet Archive), it may not be possible for non-sysops to know what the content of the wiki was, since the URL won't be available. (Making the URL unavailable is the whole point of delisting it.)

As much as Wikipedia's child protection policy might be deserving of criticism, at least it does clearly state a narrow range of activity that is prohibited. There isn't much room to stretch the boundaries of the prohibition through an expansive interpretation. That would be the model for option #2 above.

Also, I think we should specify what content is specifically included. For example, how do we feel about vanity wikis? What about dead wikis? What about wikis we're unable to verify ever existed? What about very small, abortive projects that only had a few pages? Leucosticte (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion with warning

Since this is the inclusion policy I prefer to talk about inclusion and not exclusion.

I see the possibility to include every wiki by adding a warning-template to it, whenever there is a good reason to warn. Manorainjan (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but it might have the opposite of the intended effect. Kinda like how kids know which music and movies are good, by looking for the "parental advisory" and R ratings. Leucosticte (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This assumes an "intended effect." It may also assume unsupervised, wild children who have no sense. *Parents* use ratings, to decide what they will support and allow. Warnings that are fact-based do seem quite appropriate. This is an ordinary editorial decision, not an exclusion/inclusion decision. As well, *attributed opinions* may be expressed, and guidelines on that may be developed. --Abd (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several systems that claim to help parents with the media consummation of their kids. In order to come on their positive list You got to confirm to certain standards. I do not think that it should be the objective of this wiki to even try to make it on their lists. Certainly we should not have illegal content on wiki. But for an international wiki or a wiki with international scope, what is legal? Is the legal code of the country in which the current server sits the defining factor? However, in the first place, the question of linking to potentially illegal content does not even arise.

But, like the deletion guideline which suggests to delete entries about wikis if the leader/owner of that wiki so wishes, we could mark a wiki we are linking to as potentially illegal if anybody complains and supplies us with proof of that. That I would regard as a service to the readers of this wiki (How would we call them? User denotes a registered editor. Maybe we should call them (re-)searchers of this wiki ;-). The reader may be warned. And if anybody does not believe a sign saying "No Drinking Water!" it is not the problem of the one who made the sign!

Part of any policy to mark an entry as linking to potentially illegal material would be to semi-protect this page right then to prevent IP-edit-wars. And th4 policy needs to include guideline for leaders of such accused wiki to identify and verify them as competent, be informed about that mark, defend their point and eventually get the mark removed. As one can easily see from this, it involves a lot of work. Simple deletion of pages would not do. It requires judgement procedures and the like. the heavier the measure, the more responsibility, accountability and work. Sudden emotionally driven delete sessions of a single sysop do no good to this wiki.

Furthermore, any such policy requires responsible persons to translate them into action. And by now, nobody here has got any specific duty. Also I do not see a single sysop her, who would be ready to commit oneself to any specific duty. Manorainjan (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)