Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

my very first Wikipedia page

To more experienced Wikipedians, I ask for your guidance as I attempt this, my very first Wikipedia page. Thanks in advance, and have an excellent day. Jeb 04:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I can obtain more wiki hosts off the Internet but I am concerned about Wikipedia conventions and regulations in this matter. Please advise. Jeb 04:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB is probably the relevant guideline for whether a "farm" should be listed. Kappa 04:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed the WP:WEB page. This page, List of wiki farms, was a pre-existing page that I discovered while reading the page, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There was a link to the List of wiki farms page, and I decided to develop that page since I have experience with wikis, I am developing three of my own which are located on hosts other than Wikipedia.
My question is, Should I develop a page on Wikipedia with links to free and paid wiki hosts, or is that against Wikipedia policy?
Jeb 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well at the moment it's just a list of external links, it's better to focus on the more notable ones and provide some commentary. Kappa 06:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm going crazy here, but a few days ago, this was a very fully-developed page with feature lists, commentary, etc, then it was cleared? What happened? Dweekly 07:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems to have been speedy deleted [1]. We'd better go ask at deletion review. Kappa 08:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I gotta say the list is pretty bare now. Very few details, i.e., gratis is in german, if you don't speak german you are up a creek w/o a paddle... Renmiri 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Renmiri

Please put   on empty 203.84.191.122 02:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My experience at the free wikifarms

I went to each one of them trying to find a place to my Wikibook, which I'm not positive it belongs at Wikibooks. After that "pilgrimage" I added some coments to your list on some of the farms I visited. Nothing iffy, just stuff I thought other users would like to know, such as the german pages of Gratis and the difference in markup languages. For more details on what I found you can see my blog, where I blogged about my experiences

He, he, he... The deletion of this page is such a textbook example of why a page listing Wiki farms that HAS to exist! Someone deleted it because Wikipedia is not a link farm... Fine, but where does the guy who spent hours doing the table and the page is going to put his content ? At another wiki where his content is more appropriate, right ? And where can he find that wiki ?

It is precisely the reason I made my comments about markup language. People who spend hours making a page that gets voted for deletion would like to know that all their work won't be in vain, that they can reuse it. But after my trip to all the free wiki farms I found out that reusing rejected (or iffy) wiki content ain't that straight forward!

As a mater of fact, the only place where I could get something decently ressembling my original page, without having to fiddle with it a lot was editthis.info which I almost didn't try because of it's line being so empty at the table here. Seedwiki has the words "wiki mode" on it's list of features which looked like what I wanted: compatibility with Wikipedia and Wikibooks markup. Whatever seedwiki's "wiki mode" is, I could not find easily after an hour of fiddling, so I gave up.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that all the wiki farms listed here are pretty good, but each one serves better a particular kind of user, which is what my little note about markups tried to convey... Renmiri 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Renmiri

NPOV

This article doesnt have a NPOV.. user ratings like "fast setup" should not be here, it's pov. Furthermore things like "user friendly" are again POV. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please fix these. --logixoul 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just in case these are actual users complementing the products, should another article be made? Or should they post here? Talk User:Fissionfox 07:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this page

Please keep this page! I really like to have this overview of wikifarms hosted by wikipedia. For me, wikipedia is *the* source of independent, peer-reviewed information. :-) So when I looked for a free wikifarm to host my personal wiki (personal, as noone except me will ever read it), wikipedia was the obvious start point.

WRT "fast setup": yes, I really appreciate if someone looks at couple of wikis and tries to use them and reports if it is easy to use or not. To start a wiki on pbwiki was a snap - about a minute total. :-) But maybe I'll look at some other options too - their wiki markup is intuitive, but different. :-(

Wikipedian editors, don't be ridiculous, if a page is often being suggested for deletion, not many people will work on improving it. So it will not get improved - self-fulfilling prophecy. Free advice: Remove "deletion' from top page, and add on talk that it is *not* going to be deleted, ever. You want people to try wiki for their own non-wikipedia purposes, so wiki will become the "true way" to share info and publish on web. They will come back to edit wikipedia pages when they get the bug.

Suggestion: Maybe more helpful info (deep links) could be added: features, a page comparing free/paid options, summary of modes of sharing edits (if any), etc. Maybe one person can try them all and rate the features (I know, 'no original research' rule is against it), and/or look for reviews etc. But even as it is now, the page is quite useful. Thank you for creating it and resisting temptation of deleting it! :-)

Yeah, this is my longest post so far. I really need to register user account. :-) Next time I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.96.115 (talk • contribs)

Don't Delete, just help make it -not- POV.

A listing of the wiki farms' features is needed. Among other things, yes, it gives people an outlet to seek to place wiki stuff that -doesn't- belong on Wikipedia itself. If it's POV, wikipediaze it, don't delete it.

For example, even the word in the title "Comparison" is an invitation towards POV thinking, but that doesn't mean that the underlying spirit of the article isn't useful and warranted, it just means that it needs changing.

Maybe there's another, less POV article that it could be merged with to create a greater whole.

Maybe the categories and wording should be changed to encourage enclusion of factual features of the wiki farms instead of comparisons or ratings.

Deletion is base surrender, change for the better just happens to require more work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.225.195 (talk • contribs)

About matrons

I saw the matronly note that original research was not part of Wikipedia's guidlines. Imagine the response of people who do not like bossy matronly Tony Blair style comments imposed on something that is useful to them. By the way I don't think it's polite for WikiMatrons (if they exist in WikiBossy land) to use a phrase like POV, because it isn't a word that means anything in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.114.0 (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is full of spam and non-notable entries, which is doubtless one of the reasons it keeps getting nominated for deletion. I propose removing all non-notable entries (as determined by whether they have an article or not) and also all the redundant external links alongside the wikilinks. Objections? CiaranG 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the red links themselves should be removed, but not the entries. Entries for any wikis that seem to be dead or inaccessible should go, otherwise I don't see a problem with keeping them – Qxz 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the suggestion is the same as discussed the most recent AfD, i.e. criteria for inclusion. Without one, the list becomes a spam magnet. The most sensible suggestion I have seen, and one that is implemented successfully on many other similar pages, is notability per WP:N - this criterion for list inclusion is also referenced in the AfD discussion. What's your alternative suggestion for whether or not an entry should be included? CiaranG 11:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If the site works, is actively used, and does actually provide wiki hosting services of some kind. Surely that would rule out any attempts to use the page for pure spamming; if links to non-wiki-farm sites are inserted, they can be removed – Qxz 11:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't fit in with my understanding of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, nor the views expressed in the two previous AfD discussions, but I'll try and get some other opinions. I can see this article being deleted sooner or later if it's not cleaned up. Cheers, CiaranG 11:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... fair enough. We can always go back to an old version, after all – Qxz 11:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection

Even the "non-notable" entries that do not have there own article deserve to be here. This article is perfect for someone who is looking for information on "wiki farms." I am writing a research paper on wikis, and this page is nearly invaluable. If the table were forced to be moved to another site, it would not get nearly the scrutiny that it gets on wikipedia and would become worthless as a source for my paper. It just factually lists all the available wiki farms. What could be wrong with that. Morscs5 01:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 01:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, the information was removed due to policy concerns; see notability guidelines and Wikipedia is not a directory. Feel free to make use of older versions in the page history, or alternatively use one of the links at the bottom of the page pointing to other lists of wiki farms that aren't subject to our encyclopedic policies. I should point out that using Wikipedia — or any encyclopedia — as a source for something is generally a bad idea; remember anyone can edit articles and "our" version is no more authoritative than anyone else's – Qxz 12:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The topic of wiki farms is notable. See the next 2 talk sections for more info.

The Wikipedia is not a directory page states:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference."

The items in the list contribute to a notable topic. It is a reference table. Just like Comparison of raster graphics editors.

The Wikipedia is not a directory page also states:

"Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote."

The list of wiki farms is not a loosely associated list. It is a very specific list.

Finally, this has been discussed already in 2 AFDs, and there was no decision by admins to delete this page. The most relevant concern I get from those discussions is that there should be no advertising hyperbole, and no reviews of the wiki farms. Features should be mentioned without approving or disapproving comment. --Timeshifter 07:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only place where this list could be maintained and kept NPOV.

I find it incredible that people even consider deleting this page. Wikipedia is famous because of wiki software. And people like me who are trying to find places to put up our own websites using wiki software want to compare wiki sites.

This is the epitome of what an encyclopedia should be used for. We want NPOV tables of wiki farms listing their features. I looked all over for such a list and this is the only up-to-date NPOV one I could find.

Other wiki farms would not allow this comparison on their sites, because it lists their competition.

It takes lots of editing to keep such a list up-to-date. That requires that this list be on a wiki site such as wikipedia. And Wikipedia is the only wholeheartedly NPOV wiki site. So this is almost the only place this NPOV list could exist on a continual basis.

There have been 2 AFD attempts and both have lost, so stop blanking large parts of this page against the ruling of those AFDs. --Timeshifter 05:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of raster graphics editors

See this page: Comparison of raster graphics editors

The topic is notable. The list is very detailed. There is no advertising hyperbole. This is the same kind of encyclopedic list that may only be found on Wikipedia in such an unbiased, detailed, up-to-date WP:NPOV way. --Timeshifter 06:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we be listing editthis.info?

I'm not convinced that editthis.info hasn't shut up shop for good. It's certainly not available today. Its availability has been very poor in 2007, and it hasn't attracted much advertising of significance. Though it offered a lot of function when it was up, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone now (if it does return), because it has let down so many users. Its creator started it on a laptop and, though it might have been promoted to a server in a garage, it's beginning to feel like someone has stolen the server. Thegn 15:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the listing for editthis.info has now been completely removed, without any discussion. Does anyone have any definite information to show that editthis.info has been terminated?Thegn 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove it. But if it is now a questionable site that only stays up on an irregular basis, I think it makes more sense just to remove it from the list. We should not be reviewing sites in the article. That is what causes some editors and admins to want to delete the article. Because then it seems like reviews could be used to advertise against the competition. There are reviews at some of the external links. I just noted that in the first paragraph of the article.
The image editor comparison table (Comparison of raster graphics editors) at wikipedia does not review the programs. We should not do reviews of wiki farms at wikipedia either. If we do, then we become a spam magnet for negative advertising via reviews. --Timeshifter 21:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The site is back up and running after being dormant for a few days. It seems someone beach me to the ounch in restoring it. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Message from Editthis.info Admin

Sorry for the site outage on Monday, it was my fault. Please note, there has only been three downtimes over the past 6 months on the server, and none that lasted over 48 hours. All three times were due to network issues, and the server was running continuously through them despite being unreachable. I am working hard on improving the service and am focusing on maintaining a continuous uptime. It has been a long time since the era of the "laptop" and anyone that uses the site will notice its fast load times (despite the fact that it recieves 40,000 hits per day). Thanks, User:RobKohr

Editthis.info down again (May 27th, 2007)

Editthis.info face yet another weekend when, without warning, the site is down. In 2007, this site has established a reputation for among the worst availability offered by any Website, free or otherwise. The owners of this site don't seem to appreciate that, because most of its users are hobbyists, many of them plan to do their bulk updates and clean-ups over the weekend. Thegn 05:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Editthis.info down yet again (June 11th, 2007)

New error this time. The server is asking for a user name and password. Thegn 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Central Desktop

http://www.centraldesktop.com/ I took a brief look at the front page of Central Desktop's website, and it appeared that it only offered Trial and Paid subscriptions, but this article said that it offered Free and Paid subscriptions. Could someone please assist me in this matter? TalkFissionfox 06:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the info in the chart. --Timeshifter 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion reviews. See Comparison of raster graphics editors.

Those considering this page for deletion should look at Comparison of raster graphics editors and the previous discussion here. All the problems mentioned in the previous deletion reviews have been solved. Advertising hype has been removed. There are no prices listed. --Timeshifter 22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Some say that Wikipedia-type hosting is not notable. Wikia.com, founded by Jimbo Wales, is not notable? Wikipedia is consistently one of the top sites (number of hits). The software it uses, and spinoffs, are creating all kinds of collaborative content on the web. That is not notable? It is easily as notable as graphics and image editors. Collaborative text/HTML editors such as wikipedia, wikia, and wiki hosts are just as notable as regular text editors, etc.. See

Comparison of text editors
Comparison of layout engines (HTML)
Comparison of layout engines (graphics)
Comparison of layout engines (XML)
Comparison of web browsers
Collaborative editor# List of current editors
Comparison of raster graphics editors
Comparison of wiki software
List of wikis
List of collaborative software
Comparison of file sharing applications
I put the previously-mentioned comparison page in the list also, for convenience. --Timeshifter 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories with many lists and comparison tables.

Category:Software comparisons
Category:Technology-related lists --Timeshifter 05:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion reviews. See Comparison of one-click hosters

Wiki hosts are just as notable as one-click hosters. See:

The subject of a wikipedia list must be notable. But everything listed on the list does not have to be a household word. There is a guideline somewhere that discusses this. It talks of "Nixon's Enemies List." I doubt most people have heard of everyone on that list. But the name "Nixon's Enemies List" itself is notable. Just like web hosts and wiki hosts are notable. --Timeshifter 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The WP:NOT#DIRECTORY section states:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." --Timeshifter 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference links are allowed. Non-notable stub links are not allowed. So the list should have reference links back to all the hosts listed, including the non-notable hosts. But wikipedia guidelines do not allow the creation of red-linked empty stubs for all the non-notable web hosts listed.

Many people have been confused by Wikipedia:External links. Recent discussion has clarified that the guideline does not apply to reference/citation links. It has been clarified in the introduction of that guideline article. --Timeshifter 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tables listing features

Another thing I thought of as to why this table is unique on the web. Many people want a single NPOV table listing wiki farms and their features. I looked all over for such a list and this is the only up-to-date NPOV one I could find on one page on the web. Other wiki farms would not allow this comparison on their sites, because it lists their competition. As I said it takes lots of editing to keep such a list up-to-date, and especially to keep it NPOV. That requires that this list be on a wiki site such as wikipedia. And Wikipedia is the only wholeheartedly NPOV wiki site with lots of editors. So this is almost the only place this NPOV list could exist on a continual basis. So I ask people to consider that this is a notable topic, and that WP:NOT#DIRECTORY can, and has, been interpreted to allow many lists and tables on wikipedia, if the subject of the list or table is notable. Some of the lists or tables are content forks from the main articles covering the topic. I ask people to use common sense when interpreting wikipedia guidelines. I think the main point of the wikipedia guideline is to avoid unnecessarily duplicating database-type lists and tables on the web such as yellow pages, tv and radio schedules, hotel guides, campground guides, and other very detailed, commercially-oriented, stuff.

A big problem with the secondary wikipedia-linked sites (such as Wikibooks Wikispecies Wikipedia Commons Wikiquote Wiktionary Wikisource Wikinews Wikiversity) is that they all require separate logins. Lists and tables require a lot of people contributing to them. So wikipedia is the natural location for lists and tables. Until wikipedia and its offshoots create a common login, then the offshoots will always be much less popular for editors to jump in and edit. Too many watchlists to bookmark and keep track of. So for now, let us keep wikipedia for the lists and tables, and use the other sites for more specialist info such as the how-to guides, etc.. I can contribute to some of those sites. But there is no way I could maintain a list or table by myself. Wikibooks will not have enough interested editors to maintain lists and tables. Many wikipedia editors drop in on wikipedia list and table pages, though. So that is why we should keep them maintained on wikipedia for now. --Timeshifter 02:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thousands of lists and comparison tables at wikipedia

The decision of the last deletion review on April 10, 2007 was to keep this comparison table of wiki farms.

To further make the case that deletion reviews are no longer necessary for this comparison table:

This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables at wikipedia.

The key is that a wikipedia list not be a list of loosely associated items. And the topic of the list must be notable. The lists and comparison tables pulled up by the above search links are about specific topics. They are not lists of loosely associated items. See the wikipedia policy: WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Timeshifter 04:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF?!

http://EditThis.info is down! And everything on the server, too! Constantsun's blog is down too, it appears that everything related to the website just keeled over and died. It's been replaced with one of those dodgy "searh sites". - 2-16 11:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is back at this moment. --Timeshifter 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And now it requires a username and password. This is stupid. Now, I lost 2 wikis today. I was planning on moving my two wikis to Wikia.--168.13.191.66 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Editthis.info is back online. Rob Kohr must be fixing his server. His wireless router is a Linksys. I'm thinking about moving my two wikis to Wikia, because Editthis.info doesn't have protect options whether I can semi-protect or full-protect.--Edtropolis 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Editthis.info is no longer available as of today.--209.215.50.59 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rob Kohr is now considering rewritting EditThis. I'm assuming the old EditThis is now dead.--72.146.199.197 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanked the page.. :|

Sorry guys, accidentally hit the wrong button :|, I was just about to undo that change when someone else did and marked it as vandalism.. Just wanted to say sorry.. --65.182.70.73 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That was me -- you are forgiven ;) Gscshoyru 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed, when I went to click the undo button it was missing lol, and thank you --65.182.70.73 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Elwiki's Death

Why has nobody posted this?


Is it dead, dead? The server has been playing up recently, with several days on and then several days off. Are you saying it isnt coming back at all? Or it is just another temporary glitch?

cloest I can tell, the first wiki owner on Elwiki claims he isn't the site manager. (His blog even goes so far as to mention lawyers specifically.)

A WHOIS shows a 'proxy inc.' registered the name for a client, and a WHOIS on the IP does the same. I can bring up a simple page for a BACKUP of Elwiki's entire database, but I'm not sure what that will so. I have limited success with Google cache or webarchive.

I really think it's dead. I have not been able to access it at all for the last month.

Hey guys. Please sign your posts. Just click the signature button on the edit window toolbar. I guess it is time to remove Elwiki from the list. --Timeshifter 12:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

After almost a month down, it seems to be up again --130.217.76.77 02:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Building Wiki Farms

Does anyone here have any knowledge on building a Wiki Farm? For instance, using mediaWiki or TWiki to actually build a farm? My site could make very good use of one, but I'm not able to find anything on what's involved in that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ishmayl (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also having the same problem. Lots of info on Wiki farms, but not about setting up your own farm. I would love some info on self hosted wikifarms, but can not seem to find any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.122.123 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

About the Wikia entry

"No means to close an inactive wiki, even if the community has moved elsewhere."

Uhhh... No. You just need to use the "Contact Us" in the main Wikia site to inform an admin about wiki deletion. Someone edit that out.
- 58.69.4.187 06:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit anything on wikipedia or wikia. Just click the edit links.--Timeshifter 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The founders of the http://eve.wikia.com/ site took there wiki to http://eve-wiki.net (see: http://eve.wikia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=2989&oldid=2987) but after repeatedly asking to have the wiki deleted Wikia has still refused to do so. (see: http://eve.wikia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=4785&oldid=2989) The owners of Wikia have hijacked the page and become the Sysops for it claiming private servers can not be neutral. Alatari 15:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
But just look at the recent changes there and there's indeed many people who decided to stay. 06:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.167.56 (talk)

2 other farms

Found two other site not listed in this article: http://enterwiki.net/ and http://strategywiki.net/ They are game focused so do they belong in this page or is there a better location? Alatari 15:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at them just a little bit, and they don't look like openwiki farms where people can start wikis on any topic. --Timeshifter 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
They seem to be focused on gaming topics only. I was asking what article on Wikipedia they would belong to. Alatari 10:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I am not sure there would be a wikipedia article they could be used as a reference for. --Timeshifter 11:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Instant-wiki

Alllow something with ads but no picture uploads. for example, WIKI Maestro GK tramrunner 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm

I disagree with Timeshifter's personal interpretation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:LIST, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. External links to homepages should be at best treated as self-published sources that are promotional in nature, and as such should be removed. --Ronz 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your independent interpretations of WP:LIST have been refuted many times. Sorry. --Timeshifter 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This page was very useful for me today. It was a good source of information, not links. --Yablochko (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the links, following general consensus of WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#LINK, and that no one has addressed my concerns here. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the plan?

It was my understanding that this article had moved to Wikiversity and we were going to rename this one Wiki farm (after naming the current Wiki farm something else) and remove the tables and copy over any text we liked from the old Wiki farm article. Is that still the plan and if so, who is in charge? Jojalozzo (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of what's transpired: (1) The all-inclusive version of the Comparison got copied to Wikiversity (2) The Wikipedia copy of the Comparison was pared down to just the notable entries (3) Wiki farm was just a redirect to the Comparison (4) I moved the Comparison to Wiki farm (5) Per talkpage comments, I pulled the tables out of Wiki farm back into a "new" Comparison article, leaving Wiki farm with the definitional lede and some other skeleton content (6) No one in the original Comparison discussion wanted the Comparison deleted, just pared down, which was done in (2). IMO, no further action is required. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Please tell me our notability criteria are. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
(Personal opinion) That they have an article, which is presumed to establish notability through sources therein. If an existing entry is not notable, one can AfD its article. If a new entry is to be added, one would be advised to WP:WTAF. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
How can a list be of use when its only notable entries, especially when wikipedia has such strict rules on sites having notability. A big wiki farm doesn't have to have been mentioned in english media or be very notable. Its pretty much a loss to the article and information level as a whole. It favors that everyone only gets directed to the biggest english wiki farms. Lord Chaos (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The change to the list

Its been a while since I was here last to check on the list, as it was very useful to compare wiki farms and check for inclusions of new ones. But now I see the list has been pruned down tremendously, which imo is a bad thing. Right now a lot of entries are missing making it much less useful as a comparison. Its like comparing colors where half the spectrum is missing. I am also unsure why the notoriety requirement sneaked in, a wiki farm is a wiki farm, regardless of whether its notable or not. Some really good wiki farms do not have wikipedia articles. Lord Chaos (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You can see the very exciting older article at [2]. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Then feel free to make articles for them and then afterward add them to this list. If they're that great, surely there will be a couple reviews of them. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is very strict on what internet sites gets a page and many sites even if great and very useful, might not have reviews at all or media mention to any significant degree. Especially if not a US company. This is Wikipedia, I don't see the argument why a list of wiki farms shouldn't be all inclusive with every real wiki farm out there, famous in english media or not. Lord Chaos (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding Wiki Spot

I attempted to add the Wiki Spot project to this list, as it's likely one of the largest and most active wiki farms (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=326488879). The article now says (in the raw markup) "In order to keep this list from becoming indiscriminate, only entries with a Wikipedia article or other evidence of Notability are permitted."

The DavisWiki is one of the largest and most successful wikis, and it's part of the community-supported Wiki Spot project. I could write up an entry for the Wiki Spot project itself, but I am not a neutral party (I'm the Executive Director) and it's my understanding that Wikipedia doesn't like involved individuals writing entries (the text I added to this page, in fact, was from an older version of the page -- not written by me).

Additionally, the Alexa rank is a poor measure in our case. Nearly all of our projects are on independent domain names.

  • Also, that "Wik.is" site doesn't even appear to be active anymore, so I'd probably remove it from this list.
  • The CustomerVision BizWiki site doesn't have any indication that they are something resembling a wiki farm, either.

--philip neustrom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.48.104 (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that Alexa rank is not at all an inclusion criteria. I do commend you on your adhering to the conflict-of-interest policy by not creating an entry on Wiki Spot yourself. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
All wikis hosted under the wik.is domain are still running, so it should not be removed. Nevertheless, I agree with you about the removal of CustomerVision BizWiki. Is CustomerVision BizWiki really a wiki farm? It appears to offer its software to comsumers, but I don't think that CustomerVision BizWiki hosts wikis. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like they're another SocialText, offering software-as-a-service internal corporate wiki hosting. Whether that's technically a wikifarm...seems to depend on the definition used; I found a few conflicting ones when googling quickly. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I think adding Wiki Spot is a good idea, because they are a fairly important wiki farm. Steven Walling 07:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've looked into WikiSpot in-depth, and it's pretty clear to me that it doesn't meet the notability requirements. I couldn't find the required coverage by multiple independent/reliable third-party sources. In conclusion, WikiSpot is itself non-notable and should not be included on this list. Netalarmtalk 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What? 

Shyam btr (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What does WYSIWYG mean here?

The Mediawiki editor that I use in WP is not what I think of WYSIWYG nor is the OurProjects.org (moinmoin) page editor. Do these wikis have alternate WYSIWYG editors? If not and WYSIWYG means the default editors, please explain what is meant by WYSIWYG. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What You See Is What You Get, is it not? 88.107.41.70 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
When you are talking about Wiki-site, for example, it means a What You Seen Is Going To Be Turned Into a Garbled Mess. :) But it can be disabled in preferences, so still a good MediaWiki wikifarm. Lumenos (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Mediawiki is NOT wysiwyg. You can put lipstick on a pig, but... This means that, for example, in the comparison, Wikia should not be listed as wysiwyg. If WP editing were wysiwyg, there wouldn't be any need for a 'preview' button, now would there? peter (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Should EditThis.info be added?

Are a lot of wikis hosted in this farm are already listed on WikiIndex. Regards --Uncopy (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo Independant Wiki Alliance

Why isn't the NIWA included? The NIWA is a wiki farm with Nintendo based wikis such as Bulbapedia, Super Mario Wiki, Zelda Wiki.Org, WiKirby, Metroid Wiki, Lylat Wiki, and Pikipedia. So why isn't it listed. SeanWheeler (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Only notable wiki farms (those which have their own article, with supporting citations in WP:RS reliable sources establishing WP:N notability) are listed in this article. There's a good summary of the history of the article at the top of this Talk page. There may be a place for NIWA now at Wikiversity and even Includipedia. If/when NIWA becomes WP-notable, then it can get its own article here, and hence be listed in this article. --Lexein (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The NIWA Wiki's aren't all hosted on the same server(s), so i don't think they qualify. Bud0011 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC).

referata

Just wondering if http://www.referata.com/ could or should be added into this. I'm not 100% clear of the guidelines when I read through this. I'll try to read through this again after getting some sleep but is there anything there that is disqualifying it from being a wikifarm listed here? KTCAOP (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that referata deservers to be in the list. Not sure what to add to "Features", "Multilingual" and "Syntax" columns but I think it's ok to leave them blank. I don't believe there are strong rules for adding a wiki farm in the list. I also found some other wiki farms based on wikimedia that worth to be mentioned: editthis.info, wikkii.com wiki-site.com. I guess most of the people are trying to find mediawiki farms for their projects because mediawiki is so easy to use when compared to other wiki software. So they should be in the list. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
And another one: http://www.shoutwiki.com —  Ark25  (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Technical references

Is there out there a list of useful technical comparisons for wikifarms?

The popularity of a wikifarm is not as useful to know as whether it has sufficient connectivity to provide accessible wikis, an up to date version of MediaWiki (or whatever) and enough MediaWiki extensions. (You would expect a full suite of extensions only for a paid wiki but there is a need for enough to allow for proper functioning.)

wiki-site.com is the one wikifarm with which I am familiar and it seems popular (but it's not in the list any more; is it still going?) Such free wikifarms supported by advertising would logically be the way forward for the sector, but only if they can show that they have put enough into their resources. Popularity comes as a cost: it has to be supported by connectivity. Is there a rating for this that one can check?

Hogweard (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What about useability?

Wikia free hosting looked great on paper, but I'm finding it completely unusable because of edit freezes, excessive ad activity and constantly/repeatedly being pushed to pages Wikia wants me to look at, instead of where I wanted to go. So the bottom line is, I can't get the editing work done that I need to do. Maybe we need a way for users to rate the different farms, one to five stars or whatever. LADave (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a product review service. If it is mentioned in websites or published in news papers or magazines, it may be mentioned in wikipedia.59.162.170.113 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I was happy to see the the other wiki sites listed in wikipedia. Amazed even. But I would like to know how similar the editing environment is to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great, but Wiki Spot has a different "look and feel" to it. I am continually amazed at how professional Wikipedia is, not just in content, but in editing capabilities. The others must be a few steps behind, which can be a little disappointing. I don't think it is a question of "evaluation" as much as an understanding of what is going on. ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC))

out of date information

added a tag to reflect this. especially regarding the first source. information used here, and available at the source, is dated to 2006 in some cases, so the feature list of the sites may not be accurate as many features have changed in 5-6 years. 99.13.18.93 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam protection

We ought to state what spam protection these wiki farms have, if anyone has such information.

Being overwhelmed by wikispam is the major problem with wikis: I am about to close a farmed wiki down simply because the whole thing is choked up every day by SEO spam, and frankly it is not worth it. There is no future in wikis unless the spammers can be defeated.

There are spam-protection methods, which some farms may offer and others do not. If they do not, one must steer clear of them, so it is rather important for someone thinking of creating a wiki. Howard Alexander (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

New farms

The list needs an update many new farms are available: http://wikkii.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Pantera (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 July 2012

Wikkii.com

http://www.wikkii.com

This is a large wiki farm. I am sure notability requirements can be met without having to create a separate page for it. Some clueless deletionists hijacked Comparison of wiki hosting services awhile back, and invented new rules for notability.

If some articles about Wikkii in the media could be found, then normal notability requirements would be met, and it could be listed here. I am not going to follow this discussion much though. I long ago stopped arguing with moron tagteams. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the only other wiki farm currently on the list using straight MediaWiki, ShoutWiki, has been listed here for awhile. Wikia uses highly modified MediaWiki software. So, I don't see why Wikkii.com, another large wiki farm using straight MediaWiki, should not be listed here. Neither of those wiki farms using straight MediaWiki have an individual article. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikkii seems to have been abandoned by its new owners. For more info go here. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

ShoutWiki

ShoutWiki was deleted according to the infinite wisdom of another spam fighter today. Here is the diff for those who want info about this MediaWiki-based wiki host. Here is the revision before the deletion. Maybe somebody will use the info here later, or in a separate Wikipedia article about ShoutWiki.

This deletionist's reasoning was "no Wikipedia article = not notable for inclusion." A rule invented by a few spam fighters, but only applied to certain list topics of their choice. A few more people have probably stopped editing Wikipedia due to this latest application of an arbitrarily applied list rule. See: User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors.

As I said in the previous talk section I am not going to be following or participating in this discussion much. I am only pointing out the wiki hosts for others who have more of an interest in editing this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Flask hosting

ok, I have a Case

I need to host a Flask app for some development, preferably with some database connection like **SQL, PostgreSQL or MongoDB(notSQL)

But here is the catch

Each offer has a different price structure from free to whatever, some even do not provide the free option, and there is different restrictions with the free option.

Also, there is different versions of python that is run on there servers, 2.6 or 2.7 at the date of writing.

Here are some of the sites I was looking at, and I am confused about this right now.

.. there are more I think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.208 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarified hidden note to editors

I clarified the hidden note to editors according to the arbitrary, unofficial, and unapproved rule of a few clueless spamfighters: WP:WTAF

See diff. The hidden note previously said: "In order to keep this list from becoming indiscriminate, only entries with a Wikipedia article or other evidence of Notability are permitted. If you want to add an entry, take the extra 10 minutes to write an article for the website first. See also WP:WTAF."

It seems that people were confused by "other evidence of Notability". So they were adding entries only to have them deleted arbitrarily days, weeks, or months later by some clueless spamfighter following their own arbitrary rules of notability. So I corrected the hidden note to what is actually true here:

"Only entries with a separate Wikipedia article can be listed in this article. See the talk page and WP:WTAF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Write_the_article_first "

This way Wikipedia is less likely to lose more editors due to their contributions being arbitrarily removed: See: User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This hidden note should now be removed. Mediawiki-based wiki farms should be in an article comparing wiki hosting. But few of these wiki farms will be notable. Since there are so few of these pure unadulterated Mediawiki wiki farms, then it is even more necessary to use common sense when applying notability rules to facts in an article. Most facts in an article are not notable. It is OK to add these wiki farms to the list here. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wetpaint

Wetpaint has transitioned to a celeb news site, and is currently not accepting new wikis. I propose its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomsf (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Standards for inclusion

WikiApiary knows of over a hundred farms, wikistats is more restrictive but still has a dozen. New MediaWiki farms are born and die continuously, it doesn't mean they're all relevant. Can we draw a line somewhere, e.g. exclude the farms with an Alexa rank lower than 100,000? Or 200,000? The list seems to include some very irrelevant ones. --Nemo 07:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Found another site with wiki farms, see here

I don't think we should look at the Alexa rank, rather list those that are free and have the best features (amount of space being an important issue) 109.130.198.6 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

MW Zip

http://mwzip.com

MW Zip is another free wiki farm using unadulterated MediaWiki software. I know of only 3 such wiki farms that are up and running. The other 2 are Orain and Shoutwiki:

Wikia uses a greatly changed version of MediaWiki. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

orain is currently up for sale (2016-08-11) and not serving content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:Red link. "This page in a nutshell: Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject."

Every fact in an article does not have to be notable. In fact most facts in articles are not notable. And not all red-linked articles will get an article made right away, or even soon. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, red links are there for topics that should have articles but do not. The way we determine what should have an article is by notability. Since Wikipedia is not a place for original research such that something is notable because someone says so, we determine notability by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is not an article but a comparison article (a kind of list), which means that the redlinks you want to include are not incidental redlinks created in the course of writing an article but individual entries in the list. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of websites but rather an encyclopedia with encyclopedic lists, such comparisons/lists of topics like websites are not for every website that meets the most basic description. Instead it includes a subset that is notable. See for example the common selection criteria. Sometimes we have lists with red/blacklinks when none of the entries are notable and sometimes a list can be exhaustive (like a discography, list of letters in the alphabet, list of state capitals, but not a list of a type of website). The argument that WP:WTAF is "just an essay" is a weak one to rely on, since it's an essay that exists as a practical interpretation of policies and guidelines that have broad acceptance. So yes, it is just an essay, but none of the other links in this paragraph are. We don't include things just because you say they're important or just because they exist. In the interest of not participating in an edit war, I await your response. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(unindent). Thanks for the link to common selection criteria. I am glad to see that Wikipedia has advanced beyond the mindless application of an essay, WP:WTAF. That essay, and the group of clueless spamfighters (many of them) that enforced it without any subtlety or understanding of either Wikipedia guidelines or the topics the lists covered, are responsible for driving away many editors. Common selection criteria is a much better guideline. Here it is:

  1. Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.
  2. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)
  3. Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm ignorant to the fact that CSC is newer than WTAF. I just assumed it was the other way around, so to me it's just a nice summary/application of other policies/guidelines. I can see how that would be annoying, though, if there weren't a clear foundation for it though.
Would you object to removing the redlinks again? (Alternatively you could, you know, write the article first. :) [kidding]) --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Unadulterated Mediawiki-based wiki farms should be in an article comparing wiki hosting. There are only 3 that I know of (see previous talk section). But few of these Mediawiki-based wiki farms will be notable. Like many software areas, it is the topic that is most notable. People familiar with the software area (like me concerning Mediawiki-based wiki farms), will know of them, but major publications don't quickly write articles about this stuff. Word gets around in other ways until it finally gets noticed by secondary sources. This is a short list, and to delete the Mediawiki-based wiki farms would be weird since MediaWiki is the main root of all wiki farms.
It is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future concerning these Mediawiki-based wiki farms since the number of wikis on those wiki farms is rapidly expanding. I know this because I keep up with the area. So, for the reasons given, I believe inclusion of Mediawiki-based wiki farms meets Common selection criteria, and common sense. In the end there aren't that many functioning wiki farms of any kind. So it is a fairly short list no matter what selection criteria are used. Wikipedia is good at deleting the wiki farms that stop functioning or close down. Far better than some of the compilation articles sometimes used as references. The info in some of those articles is already old and inaccurate when the articles came out. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Unadulterated Mediawiki-based wiki farms should be in an article comparing wiki hosting. But again, we don't go by what editors think is important except when backed up by reliable sources. but major publications don't quickly write articles about this stuff - But that's how Wikipedia works. It reflects what's covered in reliable secondary sources so that we don't have to rely on the judgment of individual editors. I don't doubt your knowledge, but you should realize you're making the same argument people use about why a band, filmmaker, software product, manufacturer, consultant, etc. should be included -- that it's useful and/or significant to a particular group but doesn't get the press attention other groups do. This is a common criticism of Wikipedia in the way its policies reinforce the status quo in terms of what has or has not received press attention. If it doesn't get coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't belong, for better or worse, and "They're notable because I know what I'm talking about" doesn't usually go very far.
Look, I'm not going to edit war over this, and it's certainly not important enough to bring elsewhere, so I'll back off. But I do think that you should remove them or create stubs. If you do, I assure you that if they're deleted it won't be me who added the tag, anyway. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:Primary sources are allowed too on Wikipedia. Many, many facts in articles are only backed up by primary sources. This qualifies. This article would be ludicrous without MediaWiki-based wiki farms. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

adding google sites and reddit

Could be possible to add Google_Sites and Reddit as wiki hosting services? They hosts wikis. --Pier4r (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to some actual wikis hosted by those sites? I am curious. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Here you are: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/index (very nice, but much more is to found in the subreddit). There are much more around! For google sites i know only that they hosts wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier4r (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The Reddit site you linked to looks like a wiki to me. Maybe someone will add Reddit to the table. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Orain wikifarm is gone for now

See:

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiMatrix out of date

FYI, WikiMatrix will point you to dead hosting services.

-- 50.247.80.185 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

There are a few ways we can go with inclusion criteria without running afoul of policies, guidelines, and general consensus. Requiring that each entry have its own Wikipedia article meeting our notability criteria is the easiest to maintain. Providing reliable, third-party sources that meet our notability criteria is another. Working from lists that editors agree are reliable and demonstrate due weight for their entries would be another. See WP:CSC and WP:LISTV#INC.

Until we come up with something different, I think it best to require each entry be notable. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to have this article at all, then the relative metrics of the farms seems the fairest measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Please note the sources listed produce a larger list than what is displayed here, and given the topic, wikipedia probably has more relevance to the searchers than the lists it is based on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what either of those responses mean. Please clarify, providing details and examples. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ronz: and others, per WP:CSC this list seems soemwhat narrow and I think that the information is worth retaining, so what if Miraheze was included in this list but not redlinked, and with no article created? Miraheze hasn't been around very long but we appear to be the only wiki that is free (cost), completely ad-free, offering choice of license, skin, extensions, etc, and it has a higher alexa rank than OurProject.org. @NDKilla^^^ 21:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, Orain.org was included until after the site was hacked. It was redlinked the entire time, and arguably it wasn't notable until after it was hacked and burned to the ground. @NDKilla^^^ 21:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a proposal for an inclusion criteria? --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ronz: I think that all wikis that are active, and maybe that host one notable wiki that has articles should be included. I don't think that this list should be based on notability, because this is a list for users to be able to choose a wiki hosting service that they think is better, not which one is more popular among them, so therefore I think that the inclusion criteria should just be "an active wiki farn, possibly with one notable wiki". Reception123 (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
To emphasize expand from my previous comments:
We need to meed WP:V and WP:NPOV, following the notability guideline is one way to do so, but I offered two other common options that I think apply here. We also need to keep an eye on WP:NOT, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. How do you propose we meet V and NPOV? --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ronz: For WP:V I don't think this fits into this category, as we this isn't a Wikipedia article, it is a list of wiki hosting services. Everything said in the description about the site can be verified on the site itself. For "NPOV", that is harder, but I think for some of the other wiki hosts here, they were also created by people related to the site, as they are the ones that know the most about it. Reception123 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
All article content is subject to verification. Their own site is not suitable for addressing NPOV and NOT issues. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


I understand the need to reference policies, but could you please include the part of them that you think brings value your argument.

This article does not reflect the market for picking a wiki host very well. Notability is a great reason for including an article, but not such a good reason for excluding items from a list like this.

I think you need a few more columns:

reset indent@Ronz: I agree with 100.6.110.106 on this matter, I don't think a wiki hosting service has to be notable to be included on a list or at least to be excluded from it. And for verification I don't see why wiki hosting services going on a list need to be verified and what can be verified on them. This page shouldn't only include the more "popular" wiki services, it should include all of them, if not maybe making a Category (as Category:Internet forum hosting) would be more reasonable. Reception123 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but who cares? I'm sure the marketing teams of the respective companies do, but does anyone else? If so, a source would help. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for advertising. --Ronz (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I do not see any encyclopedic content on this page, it just tells you what features every wiki has, so this page can't be considered encyclopedic itself, and I recommend as above, should be replaced by a category. Reception123 (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Number of wikis hosted
  • Number of pages hosted
  • Number of pages served per time period i.e. pages/day

are key metrics. Has the encyclopedic researchers even tried to get this kind of information?

How do we take the next steps toward updating or removing this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.110.106 (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

are key metrics Says who? --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I am really sorry but I'm not sure what you're referring at when you say "Says who". Reception123 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Ronz, I believe, is asking who decided the above are key metrics -- samtar talk or stalk 16:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ronz: Yes, that is what I meant. Also seeing that there is no activity I ask anyone for their opinions in regards to if this page should be deleted, or updated? Reception123 (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments, Ronz, could you please ask another editor to review this.

What is the process going forward for making this a better article or having it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.110.106 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the ping never showed in my notifications.
WP:AFD for deletion. Since there are no arguments for deletion yet, it will likely be rejected quickly.
WP:DR is Wikipedia's general dispute resolution policy.
I've given two options that apply to this article. I'm unaware of any general consensus for any others, and believe there is a general consensus for removing entries like this and [3] due to WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV violations from not having better sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to step back and find additional editors instead of citing policy which misses the point here.

The article should either not include the names of specific wiki hosting services or there should be a list of criteria for inclusion that relates to wiki hosting, not whether the hosts are notable.

I'm more than happy to discuss this with a wider range of perspectives than you are presenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone will have to do more than that if we're going to find consensus for a different inclusion criteria. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies like WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR most definitely apply to lists. Lists on Wikipedia are encyclopedic lists. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists:

"Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines."

As with any guideline, there's plenty of gray area for which editors determine the best course for a particular page, but there does need to be a reason for doing something other than WP:CSC, which is a clear way to stay within policies/guidelines. I fail to see such a reason here. Wikipedia is not a directory of software or companies and doesn't contain indiscriminate lists. As it is not a directory and as most lists are lists of prominent examples of something rather than exhaustive, and as I'm not seeing a compelling reason to push these guidelines aside (other than being useful -- which is not itself a good reason), I support restricting the list to only those wiki hosting services for which we have articles (or, somewhat less desirable, those which are notable enough to have articles -- as demonstrated by citations showing significant coverage in reliable sources -- but don't yet have one). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


Again, you fail to show why the guidelines are being used here.

Maybe renaming the page Wiki Hosting services that are notable enough to appear elsewhere on wikipedia?

IP, please sign your posts. The reasons Miraheze is not included (which is the main reason you're posting here) has been explained to you multiple times -- samtar talk or stalk 20:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the main reason I posting here is that I use multiple wikis every day, and the first link on google regarding wiki hosting is this article.

The article needs to be improved, yet instead of doing that, or making concrete suggestions on how to do that, you claim the main reason I'm posting here is Miraheze is not included.

I would like a decent article on the subject. You would like to question my motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ronz: (and others) I do not see how this "inclusion criteria" and "notability" works as Miraheze's Alexa rank is now 129,208 which is higher than some wikis on that list. Reception123 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability requires certain types of sources.
The inclusion criteria we have here is not dependent upon Alexa rank. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services/Archive_1&oldid=1144412057"