Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

OBSERVATION FROM SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE DISCUSSION:

It would be helpful for User:Timeshifter to quote those parts of WP:V, WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE, and WP:PRIMARY that support inclusion or User:Ronz to quote those parts that support exclusion. No need to get into a "yes it does", "No it doesn't" argument, if the specific parts of guideline each are looking at can be discussed. If one side or the other is arguing "consensus", SHOW that consensus discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From previous discussion is this guideline quote:

From Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:

"Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."

The primary-source references are the only way to verify much of the info in software and computer-related charts. Secondary sources rarely have that much detail on features, options, etc. listed in the chart columns. For example; imagine trying to find secondary sources for all the info listed in Comparison of raster graphics editors. As with image editors Wiki farms have many editing features depending on the software used.

Comparison of raster graphics editors links to wikipedia pages for each of the image editors. It is still primary sources though being used for most of the feature info in the image editor charts.

Individual wiki farms aren't as notable though, as most individual image editors. So the primary sources have to be linked in the list article itself. The topic of wiki farms is notable, though. These are the fundamental points that Ronz does not acknowledge. Primary sources are used in nearly all such lists, though they may be one step separated from the list article.

Will get back here later, or tomorrow, with more guideline quotes. Some of it has been covered previously. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You just can't ignore the guidelines with this deliberately backwards rationalization. Either use red links, or don't. You even mention Comparison of raster graphics editors! Structure the article like that, meaning use only internal links, even if red, or use no links at all. Wikipedia is not a link farm, still. 2005 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the guidelines. You did not quote the guidelines, nor make a rational argument. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For whatever reason you quoted something irrelevant, and then contradicted yourself with your own example! You are not even articlulating what you are referencing. WP:LINKFARM Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. Having these links as external links was completely inappropriate. You can at least make a case for references, but they are not referencing anything. You are just including the URL, which could be easier done and less ugly by just typing somewiki.com. It's policy to not have long lists of off site links. That is not what this encyclopedia aims to do. Whether that is a bad policy of not, it is what it is. 2005 (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:2005 wrote "You can at least make a case for references, but they are not referencing anything." User:MichaelQSchmidt pointed this out to me, and so I made a start in clarifying the purpose, and the reference format, of the primary-source links in the reference column. See this version of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=271111170 --Timeshifter (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think we're starting to reach a consensus of sorts. Again. Timeshifter, you seem to be the only one who's in disagreement about removing the links. As best as I can tell, 2005, Ronz and I are all on the same page here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OBSERVATION:

It was asked that all parties supply their rationale and Timeshifter did indeed supply the guidelines he was using and explained his rationale. I ask please, toward reaching an mutual understanding, that Ronz, Annyoung, and 2005 please supply in kind rather than immediately debating his proffered reasons, as the first step in any discussion is to understand the others point of view. I had posted a question at the Village Pump and recieved a very cogent response about WP:IAR:

"Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is official policy, so "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" takes precedence over any guideline, and that can mean exceptions. Of course, applying IAR without abusing it is kind of difficult (see the essay links from WP:IAR), but on the vast majority of pages, that's not an issue and editors get along just fine."diff.

So... might all parties might rein back just a bit? The article is not going anywhere and an eventual agreement will benefit Wiki and everyone involved. So perhaps Ronz, Annyoung, and 2005 might collaborate on presenting their own rationale rather than simply dismissing Timneshifter's? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, you really need to stop yelling about your outside observation. We all understand that you are, on some level, an outsider. I think you've been here long enough that that categorization doesn't hold true anymore, but whatever.

I don't understand what hasn't been stated already. First, I'd argue that nothing in WP:ELYES states that the links should be included. They're not about the official website for link farms per se, they're not articles, and they don't have reviews or interviews. WP:ELMAYBE #4 says that some sites that "still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" may be counted, but I'd argue that since the sites themselves are primary sources, this doesn't really apply. Now for WP:ELNO. #4, "Links mainly intended to promote a website.". #5, "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." That's what this whole article is about, more or less, and adding links just promotes that. Under the same rules, it's a type of linkspam.

Also, what is unclear about my suggesting that consensus has been reached? 2005, Ronz and I are all on the same page that the links don't belong in the page. Timeshifter disagrees. That's all there is to it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No "shouting". Just trying to be as neutral in defusing this as possible. With respects, I think this is a bit more complicated a situation than "2005, Ronz and I are all on the same page that the links don't belong in the page. Timeshifter disagrees. That's all there is to it." Three to one makes it okay? Three people acting together to create a three-person consensus that effects the entire project...? Pardon, but it seems that just as you three are in agreement about the best way to procede, there were other editors supporting the different tack taken by Timeshifter... for instance Childofmidnight and Ikip. That could be considerd a 3 to 3 standoff... a shootout at high noon... Earps vs Clantons at the Okay Corral. (Sorry - melodrama) You guys need to remind yourselves, and I am not saying this to be condensending, but there were many editors who contributed to this odd article long before any of this recent group became embroiled in an edit skirmish. it doen't belong to whoever editor or group holds it last. Perhaps its time for WP:ArbCom? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop pretending you are somehow neutral or "outside". You've taken the point of view that ignore all rules is somehow valid here. We have guidelines. We have policies. We have many editors supporting their application here. I have no interest in the topic of this article at all, only in the fair and consistent applications of policies, and I certainly don't need someone aggravating the situation by suggesting they have some special position by making faux "neutral" posts. In the future, please show respect to other editors and just state what you productively think is best for an article. 2005 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR applies EVERYWHERE in wiki if it serves to improve. That's what it is for. You advising me to not opine unless I know the issues? It being repeatedly stated that only certain guidelines apply per one group's interpretation of consensus and that an opposing group's opinions or interpretatuions of consesnsus don't count? Being told the heart and soul of IAR is invaled in improving wiki?? I stepped in because I just don't like bullies. This should most definitely go to ArbCom RFC per Chris not at work, as other methods of trying to diffuse the accrimony are failing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jumping straight to ArbCom is totally unnecessary, and they would almost certainly turn us down for not stepping through the dispute resolution process. I think Chris' suggestion below of an RfC is pretty good. If the rest of the editors on Wiki think that the links should stay, then I'll bow to them. On a side note, this edit by Timeshifter is interesting, and has me sort of second guessing things now.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I grant you that WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE do not directly apply to the use of primary-source references in this article. WP:ELYES applies in a roundabout way. WP:ELYES is relevant concerning articles about individual entries in a list. For example; there is an article about this wiki farm: Wikia. The home page is listed in the infobox of that article. It is not referencing anything there. Wikia.com pages are also used as primary source references. See the first reference in the reference list of Wikia. So various Wikia.com pages are being used both as references, and as external links under WP:ELYES. People do not feel the need to put primary-source reference links in a list article for entries that already have that link in the individual article. It avoids unnecessary duplication. But it is technically a bending of the guidelines concerning referencing Wikipedia. Articles are supposed to be complete in themselves, and able to be mirrored individually. Their references should go outside Wikipedia. But to avoid unnecessary duplication of primary-source links we bend the guidelines. This exception is an example of this quote from all guidelines: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Otherwise for a list article such as Comparison of raster graphics editors we would have to link to the home pages of all the image editors. The primary sources are the only place to verify all the features and options listed in the tables. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another opinion and !solution

I feel entitled to put my two cents in here. I voted to keep this article on grounds of notability and since then I've seen the warring going on over the external links. Anyone who's ever seen my edits knows how strongly I interpret WP:EL and how much spam I remove, but at the same time anybody who's ever seen me at AfD knows how much I value sourcing as a means of determining notability. I've stayed out of this debate because those get blurred here. I agree with Ronz that a column being devoted to links to the separate sites is undue promotion, but I also agree that the information should be presented here as means of verification. I think it would work best to keep the standard "references" section at the bottom of the page as means of verification. As a solution I propose that the links stay as references (as that's what they are) but that they shouldn't be given a special column in the chart. So I propose getting rid of the second column and moving its contents to the first column. That way the reference is directly after the subject being referenced, as is typical on Wikipedia. Anybody needing to verify the individual wikifarm would just check out the reference next to the name and it would take them to the homepage, but the fact that the homepages are on the page wouldn't be stated in the chart explicitly. Themfromspace (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think this is a good compromise. That second column now is ludicrous - and it's made even worse by the absurd header of "Link to home page to verify features and options listed in charts." I wouldn't mind putting the sources into the first column next to the name. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong. Your last comment contradicts this previous comment of yours, I believe: "On a side note, this edit by Timeshifter is interesting, and has me sort of second guessing things now." Also, the column head is necessary to meet Ronz's request that there be clarity as to what a reference is referencing. Something that has been repeatedly addressed and answered in this discussion. The column head states the obvious, but some people apparently feel that it needs to be absolutely clear. Also, in previous discussion I gave an example of a chart with a sources column.

I don't mind moving the sources next to the entry names. That is how it was long ago. But then we need to indicate somewhere on the page what those links are referencing. We could say at the beginning of the references section that the links next to the entry names are for verifying the features and options listed in the charts. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see this diff: [1]. I went ahead and moved the references out of the column, and placed them adjacent to the wiki farm names. As requested by User:Themfromspace and User:HelloAnnyong. I also placed a note in the references section at the bottom of page. That note currently states: "The references next to the wiki farm names in the top chart are for verifying the features and options listed in the columns of both charts." --Timeshifter (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge my own contradiction, but since I'm really fed up with this page, the constant edit wars, everyone's totally tendentious editing and unwillingness to compromise, I'm willing to concede some points. I'm still not pleased, though, but whatever. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also sectioning this part off since it seems to have some level of conclusiveness to it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On primary sources

Timeshifter's pointed out that many of these wiki farms aren't actually notable enough to have been covered in detail by secondary sources, and that this is a good reason to permit them to be reference by primary sources (basically, their home pages). If individual entries here haven't been covered by secondary sources, then why are we even listing them here? I dislike this idea that notability goes out of the window so long as an article has "list" or "comparison" in its title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the many end runs of guidelines here. Something unnotable is not worth noting. And, something that doesn't merit an internal link doesn't then merit an even more rare external link. But of course virtually of us know this and we're just going round and round pointlessly because someone thinks ignoring all rules, and everybody else, is okay. 2005 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for an RfC, then. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a common misconception about lists. That every item in a list (or an article for that matter) has to be notable. The topic of an article (whether a list or a standard article) has to be notable. The facts in an article do not have to be notable. In fact most facts in articles are not notable. But they are referenced. Most facts in articles are referenced with info found buried in books, newspapers, and magazines. They are certainly not notable. Please see WP:N. And primary sources count as references too for non-contentious obvious stuff. Like features in the columns of computer-related, or internet-related lists.

From Wikipedia:Notability: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." --Timeshifter (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That part of WP:N is often wafted in people's faces as if it provides one the license to add whatever one wants to an article. It most certainly does not. Trivial content is frequently removed from articles as a matter of style, and to avoid articles being indiscriminate information dumps. Furthermore, the MoS quite clearly says at WP:SAL#Lead and selection criteria that "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia". Failing to heed that is a common misconception if ever there was one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

An organized list on a notable topic is not considered a trivia section of an article. Please ease up on the hyperbole: "indiscriminate information dumps"

See my previous discussions concerning Nixon's Enemies List and Master list of Nixon political opponents. They are specifically cited in another guideline. Not all the entries in the master list have individual articles. The guideline you quote, WP:SAL#Lead and selection criteria, says: "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required 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. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." More articles on the various wiki farms could be forthcoming if Wikipedia was more clear about allowing references for info about freeware, web hosts, etc.. There is a bias towards referencing mainly print publications. There are many online sites that review freeware, web hosts, etc.. There is discussion about this at WP:Reliable sources.

Wikipedia guidelines are contradictory and complicated at times. They are not "one size fits all." People have to use common sense. Wikipedia is not here to only cover the largest wiki farms with the most advertising, and thus able to generate articles in appreciative print publications. Do you bow only to Microsoft?

Here is a relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Citations for freeware and shareware and open source software. And here are some relevant wikilinks:

Portal:Free software

Category:WikiProject Free Software

We are all using free wiki software right now here at Wikipedia. And I bet the servers are using Linux or other free software. Do you see what I am getting at? It is petty and ridiculous that this article has been through 4 AfD deletion attempts. See the milestones box at the top of this talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Being asked to "ease up on the hyperbole" in the same breath as being queried on whether I "bow only to Microsoft". Awesome. Nixon's list of enemies is notable because the list itself is covered by reliable sources; this is a level of direct notability that very few of our list articles have! As for the rest of your argument, one reason that "there is a bias towards referencing mainly print publications" is because these are generally far more reliable than random websites. As for the list being "indiscriminate", it fits that definition because nothing other than the purported genre places many of the entries on the list; as such, it's really only one step removed from being an entirely random list of software. Were we to be discriminate, we would select only those candidates for inclusion which have been covered my reliable third-party sources; this ensures that we are not giving undue weight to extremely minor software projects. And the argument that we should be promoting this software because WP runs on it is so evidently faulty as to need no rebuttal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid that air of authority. I am not impressed. That hat you are wearing doesn't help either. ;) How do you define "Reliable third-party sources." See: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Citations for freeware and shareware and open source software. Also, Alexa could allow us to discriminate as to which wiki farms are allowed onto the list. This is a logical flaw; the belief that print publications are more reliable. See the talk link in this paragraph.

"Wiki farms" is a notable topic. Just like Nixon's Enemies List. So this is more hyperbole: "entirely random list of software"

This is the silliest logical flaw: "the argument that we should be promoting this software because WP runs on it is so evidently faulty as to need no rebuttal." This MediaWiki wiki farm software is notable worldwide due mainly to Wikipedia's use of it. "need no rebuttal" is amateur hyperbole. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Point by point, so I don't miss anything:

1. Reliable third-party sources are defined by such things as authority, stability and reliability. That few exist for freeware (and free software) is not really our fault; furthermore, it is not an indication that we need drop our standards for these subjects, as we are in no way compelled to cover them.
2. Alexa isn't a reliable source of anything other than traffic. Even then, interpreting a high Alexa score as being an indication of notability is just another example of WP:GHITS. Notable software will be written about in reliable sources.
3. You're pointing to a thread on WT:RS which has had little input and cannot claim to be an established consensus. Furthermore, it's got this rather silly theme of Big Software having paid off the reliable sources to promote it, which definitely isn't a consensus position. That thread proves nothing IMO.
4. "Wiki farm" may be a notable topic, but that isn't proven; the term is a neologism primarily used to refer to two or three large wiki hosting groups, and so far we haven't even got an article on the subject (just a big list of possible candidates). But regardless, when the only qualifier being used is that a given site is a "wiki farm", and there are no quality criteria, you've got an indiscriminate collection. "Indiscriminate" does not have to mean "entirely random"; it applies just as well to any collection with too low a selection threshold.
5. Nixon's enemies list was an actual list; it physically existed in real life. To compare it to an editor-selected list of Wikipedia is to compare apples to oranges. Furthermore, Nixon's list was one of the most high-profile political events of the time. There's simply no comparison between that list, and one on Wikipedia where a good number of entries don't have any coverage outside their own home pages.
6. That MediaWiki is notable does not automatically mean that the "genre" it belongs to (a genre which did not exist until after MediaWiki powered one of the most high-profile websites on Earth) is notable as well. It most certainly does not confer notability upon other instances of this genre. And Wikipedia isn't here to promote certain types of software, which appeared to be the point of your argument. There's your rebuttal.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I am repeating myself since you are not acknowledging my points.

1. Irrelevant. Notability is not needed for an entry in a list, just the topic of the list. The article topic is notable and has survived 4 AfDs. WP:Articles for deletion.
2. Alexa references are not about notability. They only reference traffic ratings. WP:GHITS is about notability. Traffic ratings could be possibly used as an inclusion criteria, but not notability. Inclusion criteria vary depending on the editors of various list articles.
3. That WP:RS discussion is about reliable sources. Reliable sources are needed for notability, not for referencing features and options in computer-related list tables. Almost all such features and options info in computer-related list tables is referenced from primary sources. Be it directly linked from a reference column, or secondarily linked via the individual articles for the list entries. In either case primary sources are the links followed to get the features and options info in the charts, and to verify it. Expanding the use of online sites as references would allow an increase in the number of entries with separate wikipedia articles. But notability of an entry is not required for an entry in a list.
4. Comparison of wiki farms is a notable topic as shown by 4 AfDs. The number of entries in a list varies. When a list becomes too long, then inclusion criteria are necessary. The list is not too long.
5. The topic of a list is what must be notable. There doesn't have be an actual list elsewhere before the wikipedia list can exist.
6. See point 4. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Surviving multiple AfDs is as often as not an indication that despite assurances that an article will improve given the chance that it's not able to for want of reliable sources. That's the case here.
2. What's wrong with the documented inclusion criterion, which is that every instance on the list should be notable enough to have its own non-redlinked or redirected article (or be expected to in future)? Despite your assurances to the contrary, this is not a rescue-style article composed entirely of software which is not notable enough for its own article - the only exception to the notability rule given at WP:SAL#Lead and selection criteria.
3. There is not currently any indication that "wiki farm" is a notable concept; we don't have an article on it.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already commented on all your points. Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You haven't yet explained why this article is exempt from WP:SAL, or stopped repeating the fallacy that repeated AfDs somehow make an article notable, nor indeed provided any evidence that "wiki farm" is a notable concept. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While Timeshifter has contributed to this talk page at great length, I don't see any explanations for anything. Rather just unjustified dismissals and exceptions to policies and guidelines with which no one else agrees. I think the only solution is to have Timeshifter banned from this article. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)