Talk:Wikinfo

It was not until I went to edit this talk page that I realised that this article has been subject to six AFD's,(as the warning it had been deleted does not show up when editing a redirect):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)
• talk) 14:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply
  ]

humm, yea, that's definately something to look out for... the redirect needed to be fixed in order to send people to the relevent section regardless. Anyway, I was just stub sorting, and I tend to try to redirect articles that it seems other people try to

WP:PROD as a matter of course. This sort of issue (6 AfD's) is one very good reason why I tend to do that... Ω (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, OK. I don't really care one way or another, it just can't continue to use {{stub}} is all (see {{stubsort}})... I'll fix that, and you can argue about it with the deletionists. ;)

Ω (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worthy of mentioning that there's also a

List of Wikis... this could be a redirect to an entry there. Ω (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I sampled a few in the list and they all seem to have articles. ... --

talk) 10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

My only suggestion is that, rather then actually deleting is again, just revert it to the redirect... Ω (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiliad22

:

Why do you think that this wiki less notable than the wikis listed at

List of Wikis

?

If we are incorporating text from

Wikinfo

is?

Do you think that the paragraph I used to create the article should also be deleted as you do not consider the site notable?

There are currently 127 articles which mention wikinfo, that is usually more than enough mentions to justify a sub of an article.

--

talk) 16:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Chiliad22 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The subject headings are clearly distinctive. This section is about the merits of the subject (the content of the page) the other is about the block on editing the page (about an editorial procedure. Please use this section to answer the questions I have put to you about the content of the page. --

talk) 08:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Why? You want to ignore what I'm saying in 2 threads instead of just 1? You are asking questions below that I have already answered multiple times... it really doesn't inspire much confidence that my time spent in a second thread would be well spent. --

Chiliad22 (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have not ignored what you have been saying, I draw different conclusions from the policies and guidelines you have been presenting and I am trying to reach a consensus with you. I believe I have replied to every point you have raised, but you have yet to respond to my questions above ....

As I said above it is better to distinguish between the merits of the auricle and the editorial procedure you wish to adopt. That way we may be able to reach consensus on one of the two issues, even if we can not reach a consensus on both. --

talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Consensus was reached a long time ago. Trying to wear we me out by multiple threads and largely ignoring what I say anyway won't get this article back... the place for that is DRV. --

Chiliad22 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

"Wikinfo (Internet-Encyclopedia) http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org Wikinfo, a 'multilingua open content encyclopaedia' was launched in July 2003 by Fred Bauder, as a 'fork' of Wikipedia. There were more than 34000 pages in January 2006. Many of the articles are drawn from articles in Wikipedia, but Wikinfo has a different editorial policy so the articles do differ. Unlike Wikipedia, which 'neutral point of view', the main article on each subject in Wikinfo adopts a 'sympathetic point of view', points of view can be added, usually as articles linked to the main article. Some topics do not appear in Wikinfo, for example, there are no entries for the current and recent US presidents although ...

— Jane E. Klobas, Angela Beesley Wikis: tools for information work and collaboration Chandos, 2006,

ISBN 1843341794

p. 46

Chiliad22 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well that can be part of your argument at DRV... as it is, we're at an impasse here and the place to get a new consensus is DRV. But have you ever been to Spain? --

Chiliad22 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I presume that you are familiar with the

talk) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The primary problem is that it's a 1-paragraph definition... that's not non-trivial coverage. With webpages, three years old is dated. One would prefer more regular and recent coverage. It's not required, only non-trivial coverage is required. For someone who demands to know my identity you're quick to whip out references to protection of personal privacy when asked anything about yourself... if you think I'm a sockpuppet, there are avenues to deal with that, but I'm not obliged to tell you anything one way or the other about my identity, any more than you're required to tell me if you've been to Spain or not. --

Chiliad22 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Such a source is adequate for a one paragraph stub article. --

talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You can see if the people at DRV agree, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be expandable to beyond a paragraph. --

Chiliad22 (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Some subjects may expand beyond a paragraph others may not, to the best of my knowledge there is not fix rule on this (If there is I'd be interested to see it). I think for for someone who made their first edit at 22:35, 5 April 2009, less than three months ago you have very strong opinions on what Wikipedia is and is not. --

talk) 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think a subject we can't

Chiliad22 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am sorry if you feel harassed, that is not my intention. My intention is to try to understand why you are so against having an article on Wikinfo when Wikinfo is used as a source and attributed as such in 100 to 200 articles. It seems to me that we should have an article on any source where we incorporate text into dozens of Wikipeia pages, as a service to our readers, (so that our readers can see what the source for the attribution is), using our own policy standards such as NPOV rather than directing the reader via a link to a third party site that may or may not give an accurate description of their site. --

talk) 23:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Aervanath it is your opinion that this conversation is going nowhere, but on an article talk page, conversations are not summarily terminated on the whim of one of the people taking part in the conversation, as that is not the way that consensus is reached. I have bought up several points that you have chosen not to comment upon. --

talk) 20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The instant you implied someone was using sockpuppets, Philip, the conversation ended. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you above (reply 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)), I never accused anyone of using sockpuppets. If you inferred that from anything I wrote, then I apologise for my clumsy writing style. To date AFAICT, all you have done is to question the style of my presentation, you have not addressed the issues I have raised in this section, and shouldn't presentational issues be raised on the talk pages of the involved editors? Do you wish to contribute to the issues under debate? --

talk) 10:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Presentational issues can also be brought up on the article talk page if the issues are severe enough to hamper the consensus-making process. Accusing others of using multiple accounts (which can very well be construed as an accusation of sockpuppetry), trying to lawyer the G4 criterion when the soul of the criterion contradicts the letter already, and trying to wonk your way out of having to retract the implication of using multiple accounts all poison the well against you. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wonk your way out of having to retract the implication of using multiple accounts" If a person does not use them for nefarious reasons, what is wrong with using multiple accounts? What do you mean by the "soul of the criterion contradicts the letter already"? What specific things have I said about G4 and this article that that you disagree with? I have yet have anyone give me a specific reason why speedy delete is a policy option for the alteration of a redirect to an article for this article by an editor who has not been involved in the process to date. --

talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil, you're not getting what I'm trying to say.

• ANY implication or accusation of using multiple accounts (even legitimately) is viewed as a personal attack, as are all other unfounded accusations. Use of multiple accounts is extremely so because doing so is frowned upon at best.
• G4 has always been interpreted to mean "articles that are substantially the same as they were pre-deletion". If we were to enforce the letter of G4 and not the spirit of it, it would be too easily gamed by altering one character.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be possible to game the system the way you are suggesting because if it is put there by someone with prior knowledge of the page which was deleted, for example a previous editor of the page that was deleted, the wording in G4 covers that. What I do not agree with is that if another editor with no prior knowledge of the page changes a redirect into an article then the page is not a copy of the previous page it is new text. In such cases an editor who objects to the content of the page has several options, but I do not think that speedy delete G4 is a legitimate option. I think that using G4 in situations like this is gaming the system because of the assumption of no change without a consensus. Suppose only the creator and the objector are involved in a dispute over the creation of a page, does a disinterested administrator close the page in favour of the current consensus? In which case depending on whether the process is an AfD or a CSD G4 will determine what the current consensus is. --

talk) 08:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

PBS, is there some reason why you refuse to take this to DRV?--Aervanath (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my last comment. I don't think it is appropriate. --

talk) 09:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, but you're definitely in the minority here; in fact, you're a minority of one, which means that any further discussion on this talk page is pretty fruitless, don't you think? Finding you on the opposite side of this debate surprises me, since I think that in the past, you and I have agreed on most issues when we've been involved in the same discussions. I'm puzzled by your insistence on continuing this conversation here, since I (and the other editors commenting above) don't see it as possible to reverse the protection on the talk page. That's why I attempted to close the discussion above: it's quite clear that at least two administrators (Tone and myself) believe that a protection of the redirect was entirely justified under

WP:DRV is to unprotect and allow re-creation, then Tone and I will have to stand back and let the article be created. Here on the talk page, you're not getting anywhere. I'm saying this not because I want to set obstacles in your way, but because I'm trying to help you: I sincerely believe that the best way for you to achieve your desired outcome is through DRV. I hope you will take this in the helpful spirit is meant. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The protection of the page is a different issue from a DRV review. Under what justification do you think that the page should be protected? --

talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This article has essentially been deleted, but Tone decided a protected redirect was a better idea than a redlink. So the thing to appeal here is a deletion decision, and the place for that is DRV. I've been telling you this for almost two weeks now. --

Chiliad22 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

What is your justification for that comment the reason given in the history of the article for protecting the page was

talk) 12:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that two other editors have also requested that something be done for

talk) 20:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe your work around depends on a script. Rumor has it that scripts can enable certain MediaWiki exploits, but I suppose that most Wikipedia readers have them enabled anyway. Lumenos (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need information to direct readers to wikinfo to avoid

Here is the relevant section [1] in the Wikinfo copyright policy:

<begin quote>

• you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B), and
• you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikinfo article is its wiki text.)

The latter two obligations can be fulfilled by providing a conspicuous link back to the home of the article here at Wikinfo.org. <end quote> Lumenos (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This shows many pages that were adapted from Wikinfo. Lumenos (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the pages I checked today, that are adapted from Wikinfo, are linked to Wikinfo directly (I thought they were only linking to the Wikinfo article.) So I don't see the point of the original question, now. If you know the article is from Wikinfo, you might just look up the article at Wikinfo and link to it, for example, "Adapted from the article Suzanne Bianchetti, from

Wikinfo, licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." Lumenos (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Deletionpedia has a more developed, older version of this article, with at least one third-party published source. That's assuming a doctoral thesis would be

You may consider the following off-topic (again), but I think this is an important example of how Wikipedia's ruling class can exert censorship against competitors. I would think Wikinfo is notable to Wikipedia editors and readers because it allows the kinds of information the management is constantly deleting here. (This is not mentioned in Wikinfo's current description, in the History of Wikis article.) For example, my personal experiences with software are easily verifiable by the majority who are capable of reading my work, because to read my work they must have a computer. It is much easier than going to a library as many sources would require. Point is that both notability and verifiability are relative to the reader, but they are treated in Wikipedia like they are universals, and third-party publishers are

If you read the rest of this talk page, you will see he type of debate that often takes place on these types of pages. It is not that there is a "Wikipedia's ruling class [that] can exert censorship against competitors" but a procedural dispute. I happen to agree with you that the topic is notable. In my opinion it is because we

talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't want to break up your post so I copied out some statements below: Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I happen to agree with you that the topic is notable. In my opinion it is because we

talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you mean Wikinfo not Wikpeepeeda :) because that is what you said many times on this talk page. It seems that you are suggesting that they ignore Wikipedia policy in favor of your reasoning? Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an angle we might be able to work with, if you would like to see Wikinfo with its own article.

Procedures "prefer" "multiple" sources for a subject to merit its own article. So we add your source to the ones from Deletionpedia, then we go campaigning at talk pages of any other wikis with less sources, using tried and true scare tactics such as, "they will come for you next". Bring the mob to DRV and viola... consensus! That and policy justify your undelete. Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

"However there is a work around that I put in place some time ago. I put into the section that the current redirect points to a {{tl:section}} template at the start of the paragraph on wiki info, so if I edit the current redirect to point to

talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like some brackets "[[" got lost up there. Maybe you mean it will jump all the way down to the paragraph about Wikinfo, instead of only going down to the section the paragraph appears in. Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem with it now, as far as me own preferences, is that it doesn't say that Wikinfo allows original research and self published sources. Much of this information is trustworthy, or at least notable. All the freak'n policy on which Wikipedia is based, often has no sources listed. It is based on original research (or obfuscation of the real power dynamics; but I digress). The policy could use some scrutiny and the encyclopedia could use some flexibility. Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed out the

talk) 20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That would seem to be an improvement especially now because now it is redirecting to the top of the page. Lumenos (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, this is discussed in "arbitrary break" section, above. And I tried on another browser and it worked there. Lumenos (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last version of this page that was in article space still exists.. it's at User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo. They put it in my userspace because I suggested it be kept as a project page. I guess I should move it to the Wikipedia: namespace. -- Ned Scott 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]