Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Comparison of wiki hosting services. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Removal of entries
I see no consensus to remove most of the wiki farms. Also, Michaeldsuarez recently updated the Alexa ranks. I thought that was the last complaint a few months ago. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see no consensus to keep them. Deja vu.
- Given that this article is poorly maintained, let's do everything we can to make it something that can be maintained in the future. Trimming down this list to only the notable entries makes it much easier to maintain and resolves some of the problems with having the Alexa information. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- This page was the definition of listcruft; did anyone see how many cleanup tags this thing had? I agree using Alexa numbering was somewhat arbitrary, but something needed to be done; and in the subsequent edit, I discarded reliance on Alexa entirely and went by WP:WTAF, which I think is a rather reasonable rule to apply to keep this page from being adverty and somewhat indiscriminate. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your latest edit has removed nearly all the wiki farms. Without discussion or consensus. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was bold; I do not deny or dispute that. I consider the cleanup tags as partial justification for the edits. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your latest edit has removed nearly all the wiki farms. Without discussion or consensus. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- This page was the definition of listcruft; did anyone see how many cleanup tags this thing had? I agree using Alexa numbering was somewhat arbitrary, but something needed to be done; and in the subsequent edit, I discarded reliance on Alexa entirely and went by WP:WTAF, which I think is a rather reasonable rule to apply to keep this page from being adverty and somewhat indiscriminate. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Disagreement on talk page section headings
- Please don't change my comments. I started this section and my section heading "Cybercobra's removal of around 40 of the ~50 wiki farms" is accurate and neutral. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I will change any heading to comply with WP:TALK and WP:NPA. I hope that all editors would do the same to promote civil dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't change my comments. I started this section and my section heading "Cybercobra's removal of around 40 of the ~50 wiki farms" is accurate and neutral. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- (Moved from my user talk page) --Timeshifter (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Talk page section headings. See Wikipedia:Talk#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages and WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- My talk page heading was neutral and not an attack. Therefore it met the guidelines. Let us just leave the talk page heading as "Latest removal". Also, please keep discussion on this talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see that we can at least agree that we can improve the section title to make it more neutral.
- No evidence has been provided, much less suggested that the removal is related to any other editing, hence "Latest removal" is inappropriate. Therefore, I've changed the heading back. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- My talk page heading was neutral and not an attack. Therefore it met the guidelines. Let us just leave the talk page heading as "Latest removal". Also, please keep discussion on this talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Latest removal" says nothing about being related to any other editing. I removed "non-notable" from your preferred talk section title since it is an opinion, and not neutral. That leaves the talk page heading as "Removal of entries". --Timeshifter (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Glad we worked this out. Thanks for your help and patience. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Latest removal" says nothing about being related to any other editing. I removed "non-notable" from your preferred talk section title since it is an opinion, and not neutral. That leaves the talk page heading as "Removal of entries". --Timeshifter (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Higher Alexa number
I propose using a different Alexa number as inclusion criteria. I removed all wiki farms with Alexa higher than 6 million. Since there is one wikilinked farm at 5,357,869. See CustomerVision BizWiki.
I don't see the need to remove wiki farms with lower (more web traffic) Alexa numbers that don't yet have their own articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't favor using Alexa per WP:BIGNUMBER. I concede that using them was and is rather arbitrary (hence why I switched to WP:WTAF). At the minimum, I would favor "must have <= X Alexa rank OR an article" with X being a good bit lower that 6 million. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BIGNUMBER does not apply. Why the desire to delete most of the article? --Timeshifter (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the tone of your characterization, but anyway: Because it comes off as adverty for the more minor services and it seems disorganized / a bit indiscriminate (see # of cleanup tags). By BIGNUMBER, I mean that arbitrary numbers (e.g. Alexa rank) should not be the deciding factor in keeping/removing entries; you seemed to concur with the arbitrariness in your 2nd VP post. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Any number is arbitrary. Commenting on tone is not a way to avoid the question about removing most of the list. Words like "adverty" are immature, and also avoid the question, in my opinion. The cleanup tags were tag-cruft. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the tone of your characterization, but anyway: Because it comes off as adverty for the more minor services and it seems disorganized / a bit indiscriminate (see # of cleanup tags). By BIGNUMBER, I mean that arbitrary numbers (e.g. Alexa rank) should not be the deciding factor in keeping/removing entries; you seemed to concur with the arbitrariness in your 2nd VP post. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BIGNUMBER does not apply. Why the desire to delete most of the article? --Timeshifter (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Given the previous discussions on the Alexa, I think we should be hesitant to base any decisions solely upon Alexa information. Note the lack of consensus that the Alexa info belongs at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
If your goal is to delete most of the wiki farms at all costs, then this probably won't interest you. Tune away if this is the case. I thoroughly understand the reasons why some people want to remove from lists all items that don't have their own article. It is a simple rule. There have been many exceptions to the rule, though.
I propose that we keep this article as is for one year. We grandfather it, in other words. After one year we remove all wiki farms that don't have their own article. We note this at the top of the article. This way everyone is happy. There is probably some rule against that though. But anyway, it is an honorable idea, and one that is easily implemented. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather just follow WP:CON and concentrate on how to make this a better article. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Explain please. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've already explained my concerns [1], and they have not been addressed. This proposal is to ignore WP:CON and WP:DR for a year. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why the rush to delete now? My proposal directly addresses your main point: "Trimming down this list to only the notable entries." Notable as determined by which entries have their own article. This long list was created before that rule was implemented widely. Shouldn't we give people time to correct the situation? There has never been a tag/notice at the top of the article that offered this option so people see the need to create separate articles. If people see that their entries were going to be deleted they would have an incentive to fix the situation. It encourages editors too, in that their past edits aren't ignored due to the lack of clarity about this rule. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd settle for 9 months. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support proposal by Timeshifter.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd settle for 9 months. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why the rush to delete now? My proposal directly addresses your main point: "Trimming down this list to only the notable entries." Notable as determined by which entries have their own article. This long list was created before that rule was implemented widely. Shouldn't we give people time to correct the situation? There has never been a tag/notice at the top of the article that offered this option so people see the need to create separate articles. If people see that their entries were going to be deleted they would have an incentive to fix the situation. It encourages editors too, in that their past edits aren't ignored due to the lack of clarity about this rule. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've already explained my concerns [1], and they have not been addressed. This proposal is to ignore WP:CON and WP:DR for a year. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Explain please. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion guideline
I agree that this list appears gratuitous. It should be trimmed to notable entries only. I suggest only including websites that have recieved significant non-automated coverage in sources unrelated to the site. Is there any objection to that definition? If so, what objection is there, and how is that objection based in policy? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I would additionally note that other projects (wikiversity, I believe, for certain, perhaps others), would be happy to take this resource without any evidence of notability of any of the entries. Perhaps transwiki the current gratitutious version there and cut this one down to encyclopedic size. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you can get Wikiversity to accept this list, that would be fine. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikiversity would accept this list. Try placing it at [2]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to try. I have asked at other places such as Wikibooks. Admins and editors there have mixed opinions. Wikiversity and Wikibooks don't get as much traffic as Wikipedia though. More traffic helps in keeping this updated. There are many computer-related comparison lists on Wikipedia. More people will keep an eye on this wiki farm comparison at Wikipedia. See this link too. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikiversity is not wikibooks. Are you saying that your prior statement that "If you can get Wikiversity to accept this list, that would be fine," is no longer true? I have gotten wikiversity to accept this list. Please move the list there, and let us pare down this list to a notable core. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can we please use Special:Import and Special:Export in order to preserve the article's history and authors? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Where do they say they accept the list? And does it have consensus? Especially from the admins. It would be pointless to move it there without consensus. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Try moving it there. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "I have gotten wikiversity to accept this list." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I talked with a Custodian there and he said it would be fine. Why aren't you just copying the list over? Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how to copy it over with Special:Import and Special:Export. Which custodian? I want to talk to them. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Make a request at [3]. I apologize, but I'm not going to release the name of the custodian I had my discussion with to you, for many and good reasons. While the import-export is in process, I will copy the text over with GFDL attribution and revert this to the cut-down version. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do not revert without consensus. Until the admins there publicly agree with it being there, it is not good to assume anything. I have seen this before at Wikibooks. What happens here is not up to me or you. We need consensus. Please follow the guidelines here at Wikipedia. The wikiversity page:
- http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_farms --Timeshifter (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- What would appease your desire for "consensus," exactly? How about this - if the article is removed from Wikiversity, we can go back to your version of the article here, but while it exists there, it can remain in the wikipedia compliant version here? Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Many people have created the article here. Trust the mediation process. The wikiversity page can be discussed in the mediation. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- What would appease your desire for "consensus," exactly? How about this - if the article is removed from Wikiversity, we can go back to your version of the article here, but while it exists there, it can remain in the wikipedia compliant version here? Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Make a request at [3]. I apologize, but I'm not going to release the name of the custodian I had my discussion with to you, for many and good reasons. While the import-export is in process, I will copy the text over with GFDL attribution and revert this to the cut-down version. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how to copy it over with Special:Import and Special:Export. Which custodian? I want to talk to them. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I talked with a Custodian there and he said it would be fine. Why aren't you just copying the list over? Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "I have gotten wikiversity to accept this list." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Try moving it there. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikiversity is not wikibooks. Are you saying that your prior statement that "If you can get Wikiversity to accept this list, that would be fine," is no longer true? I have gotten wikiversity to accept this list. Please move the list there, and let us pare down this list to a notable core. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Let me make sure I understand. You said you would be OK if it were transwikied to Wikiversity. However, under no circumstances would you agree to transwiking it to wikiversity? What mediation process? Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not twist my words. See the Village Pump and mediation section below. You reverted the article to a non-consensual version with this edit summary: "Consensus has been reached. The wikiversity article has been accepted, and per your agremeent, there is currently no one who objects to the cut-down version of this article." There have been several versions in the last few days. None had consensus. There was no agreement to anything. That is the whole point of the mediation. Some versions reduced the comparison article down from around 50 to 12 entries, or 50 to 27, and so on. Concerning the wikiversity page I did not agree to delete many entries from the wikipedia page if there was a wikiversity page. The wikiversity page could easily go through the same cycle of problems. So until something is resolved there we can not decide about removing wikipedia entries here. Anyway, it is not your decision. Or mine. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that I was clear that if the wikiversity page is manipulated in a way you don't aprove of you could revert this page to your version, but until such a time you should consider hands-offing here, as it appears that the vast majority (in fact, you appear to be the unitary voice supporting your version) of commenters find your version is excessive. Given that agreement, can you start this "mediation," while leaving this page in the version that the vast majority approve of? Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The version you reverted to was just one of several versions in the last few days. There are many people who agree with me. They aren't all here now though. Some more will show up in the mediation. Ikip agrees with me, for the most part. He commented in the mediation section just below. The vast majority has agreed to no particular version. Please self-revert to the version before entries were removed, the 20:59, October 13, 2009 version:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=319693128
- --Timeshifter (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that I was clear that if the wikiversity page is manipulated in a way you don't aprove of you could revert this page to your version, but until such a time you should consider hands-offing here, as it appears that the vast majority (in fact, you appear to be the unitary voice supporting your version) of commenters find your version is excessive. Given that agreement, can you start this "mediation," while leaving this page in the version that the vast majority approve of? Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I'm sorry, but it appears that the compromise version I selected (the one with the trafic minimum, not the one that I support more, the one with only notable farms) is the solution that makes the least number of people content with the current version and the least number of people livid. As such, it's a good starting point for discussion. I'll admit, though, if you keep reverting to the version you like above all others, I'll probably consider reverting to the version I like above all others. Now, if you think mediation would help everyone come to an agreement (though, it appeared we had, you know, with the wikiversity page), I'll happily participate. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- So, are you, or have you been, "livid", and are you going to edit war? I will give you an example of the lack of support at Wikibooks. The person replying to me in this talk section is an admin at Wikibooks:
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software. Talk section
- On the other hand there is this:
- Wikibooks:Starting and Running a Wiki Website/Hosted Wikis
- But it gets very little traffic according to the edit history. It doesn't seem to be getting updated. So it is doubtful it would get updated more if the comparison list was substituted there. On the other hand there are many computer-related comparison articles on Wikipedia. They get updated by lots of people just passing by.
- If Wikiversity is more popular and gets enough traffic, then I have no objections to keeping the list there only. Are you going to help maintain it? I see that today is when you first began editing of the article here on Wikipedia. I am not the one who decides this alone though, concerning wikiversity. And I have to be convinced it will work out there. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I will not help you maintain the article, no. If wikiversity is the right place to host the information, that's where it should go. It should not be based on "popularity." If it was, why not link to this article from Barak Obama? Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why won't you help? I don't understand your point about the Barak Obama article. Please clarify. And maybe you can convince the Wikiversity custodian to comment on the article talk page there. Or some other admins. I started the wikiversity article talk page:
- Wikiversity:Talk:Comparison of wiki farms#Wikipedia discussion --Timeshifter (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I will not help you maintain the article, no. If wikiversity is the right place to host the information, that's where it should go. It should not be based on "popularity." If it was, why not link to this article from Barak Obama? Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Hipocrite. An admin (called a "custodian" there) has responded favorably to your request at Wikiversity:Colloquium to host the article there. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Village Pump and mediation
I am taking this to mediation in a day or two. As suggested by the Village Pump discussion:
- 4-year attempt to extinguish Comparison of wiki farms, and the worldwide wiki farm info it provides.
Anyone who is interested in signing up to the mediation please say so here.
Since there is no consensus I returned the article to the 20:59, 13 October version before any entries were removed:
My proposal in the "proposal" section is still up for discussion. If we agree to something, then we can avoid mediation. Mediation can be a long process. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation it is. It'll take less than a year at least. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- See the Proposal section. I would settle for 9 months instead of a year. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- If some attempts were made to create a neutral and civil mediation request, I would consider joining such a mediation. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Horray for timeshifter. I strongly support such action. Albiet I have been only partially involved with the article last year. Ikip (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Hi Ikip. I like this quote from the Article Rescue Squadron (emphasis added):
"The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article you put up for deletion is improved through this process by addressing your concerns and thus kept, you haven't lost. Rather, the encyclopedia has won." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support action by Timekeeper.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Purpose of WP and the article
WP is one of my favorite sites to get info on the current status of technologies and implementations, but I do not understand that to be the core purpose of the project. I discovered this article when I was shopping for wiki technology and I benefitted from what I learned here. However, articles like this one which are intended to provide information on the current status of technologies and implementations are probably more appropriate for independent technology websites.
I think the demand that wiki farms be currently notable belies the transient nature of the information being provided and indicates the article is inappropriate for the project. The focus on a transient score as the basis for inclusion is a good indicator of this.
Perhaps we can start an independent wiki for transient implementations of technologies and leave WP for the long-lived information that will be useful to generations to come.
I am not a WP policy wonk and willing to hear why this ephemeral info has a place here, but please ask yourselves, "How much of what is being recorded and disputed here will be useful in 5 years?" Jojalozzo (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The article has been around 4 and a half years. There are many such articles on Wikipedia. The relative ranking of the wiki farms according to Alexa traffic rank scores changes slowly. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The policy page that appears most relevant to me is simply WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and to a certain extent WP:NOR, since this article claims to "compare" wiki farms but it's really more of a collection of information. If there were actual comparison, it would have to be cited. It's not a bad list in my opinion, it's just that Wikipedia isn't really the place for such things. SDY (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please see previous discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It's not original research (everything ought to be citeable to the wikifarms' admin pages), just permitted synthesis (the assemblage of factual information into an organized format). The only OR is possibly the choice of which axes to compare, but that's a fairly weak argument. However, I do concur with the WP:NOTDIR point, particularly if there is no inclusion criteria. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's synthesis from primary sources, though, which is a little shaky. I can't say I'm all that convinced by my own argument, frankly. The directory issue is really more what sticks in my mind. I know that other stuff of this kind exists. Creating arbitrary inclusion criteria would go over the line with synthesis. I've had the same struggle with other articles prone to excessive lists. That there is no wikifarm article (redirects here) makes me think that this is essentially an overdeveloped embedded list that was developed in lieu of actually writing an article. For example, the table talks about "Ad?" but the text of the article does not discuss the various business models used by wikifarms. I'd almost propose moving most content to Wikifarm to force the balance towards actually writing an article instead of just making a fancy list, especially if the list is moved. SDY (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I said before, please see previous discussion. The short version though is that there are many such computer-related comparison lists on Wikipedia. Many examples are linked in the previous discussion. Some also have separate articles about the topic. Separate from the list. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- That other stuff exists is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid. It may simply show lax enforcement rather than any consensus that this is appropriate content. It has a bit more weight in notability argument, but my concern with this content is ultimately about WP:NOT, one of those super-important rules that aren't often ignored. SDY (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Many of the computer-related lists have been through many deletion discussions. There is no lax enforcement. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the WP:NOTDIR and WP:SYN concerns. The only simple solution I see is to have very well defined inclusion criteria. Yes, there's some SYN issues in creating inclusion criteria on our own, but I don't believe there are any published comparisons which we could use to avoid that problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The defacto standard for computer-related lists (though not an official policy): Wikilinked entries. We need to give some time to editors to create the articles. Higher up see the Proposal talk section. How about a year or 9 months? Along with a clear tag or notice at the top of article warning editors that non-wikilinked entries will be deleted by July 1, 2010 or some other date. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- This article has been around for a long while; I don't see what difference some arbitrary date cutoff would make. Editors would be free to make articles and then re-add back entries. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- It would take a lot longer. Wikipedia is about correcting info in articles, not removing it. Anyway, this is just one idea for inclusion criteria. User:Angela edited the article, and mentioned the Alexa traffic rank number awhile back. See Talk:Comparison of wiki farms/Archive 2#Removals. Angela wrote: "HelpingStudents: Has an Alexa rank of 5 million. I don't think this is notable enough yet to be included." A rank of 5 million would allow around 40 entries. Wikipedia is not paper though. There is room for the current 50 (approximately) before the removal of entries in the last few days. I'd settle for forty. And in 9 months delete any entries without articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- This article has been around for a long while; I don't see what difference some arbitrary date cutoff would make. Editors would be free to make articles and then re-add back entries. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The defacto standard for computer-related lists (though not an official policy): Wikilinked entries. We need to give some time to editors to create the articles. Higher up see the Proposal talk section. How about a year or 9 months? Along with a clear tag or notice at the top of article warning editors that non-wikilinked entries will be deleted by July 1, 2010 or some other date. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the WP:NOTDIR and WP:SYN concerns. The only simple solution I see is to have very well defined inclusion criteria. Yes, there's some SYN issues in creating inclusion criteria on our own, but I don't believe there are any published comparisons which we could use to avoid that problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Many of the computer-related lists have been through many deletion discussions. There is no lax enforcement. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- That other stuff exists is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid. It may simply show lax enforcement rather than any consensus that this is appropriate content. It has a bit more weight in notability argument, but my concern with this content is ultimately about WP:NOT, one of those super-important rules that aren't often ignored. SDY (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I said before, please see previous discussion. The short version though is that there are many such computer-related comparison lists on Wikipedia. Many examples are linked in the previous discussion. Some also have separate articles about the topic. Separate from the list. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's synthesis from primary sources, though, which is a little shaky. I can't say I'm all that convinced by my own argument, frankly. The directory issue is really more what sticks in my mind. I know that other stuff of this kind exists. Creating arbitrary inclusion criteria would go over the line with synthesis. I've had the same struggle with other articles prone to excessive lists. That there is no wikifarm article (redirects here) makes me think that this is essentially an overdeveloped embedded list that was developed in lieu of actually writing an article. For example, the table talks about "Ad?" but the text of the article does not discuss the various business models used by wikifarms. I'd almost propose moving most content to Wikifarm to force the balance towards actually writing an article instead of just making a fancy list, especially if the list is moved. SDY (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Just as my .02, I don't think a trimmed list is appropriate. I don't think any list is appropriate, frankly, unless it's a list of wikifarms without judgment or qualification, much less an evaluation of whether any particular farm is checkbox compliant, especially when some random wikipedia editor is determining which checkboxes are appropriate. In any case, the article should be very clear that it is no way endorsing or recommending any particular product, and the current format may run afoul of that. SDY (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikiversity, wikibooks, etc... passing thoughts:
Thought I'd just start a new section on this rather than try to figure out where to wade in. Wikibooks and Wikiversity have very dissimilar inclusion criteria (I'm a 'crat on both, and know the difference fairly well). It's definitely lot appropriate as a stand-alone module on Wikibooks (which hosts textbooks), but absolutely fine as a resource page on Wikiversity (which hosts educational and research materials of various sorts).
You don't need prior blessing from the admins custodians to add content there any more than you do here :-).
As far as what should be on Wikipedia, probably not much IMO, outside of those wikifarms which actually meet the notability requirements and could have their own articles. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Great news! --Timeshifter (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)