Template talk:Wikipediahistory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Wikipediahistory page.
This article is part of the WikiProject Wikipedia, an attempt to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.

Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
NA This page does not require an assessment on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Related projects

I noticed this template when it was added to Conservapedia and noted that Conservapedia was listed under the "Related projects and forks" section. Forks I have no problem with including in this section of the template for obvious reasons, but "related projects" is nebulous to me. Who determines whether it's a related project? What does related mean? Does it signify an official connection between the two projects? Basically, I'm wondering what people think about this section and whether it should be removed entirely or trimmed down to just forks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "related" isn't the best word, but I think we should include in "related projects" any project that is at least one of these things (in addition to the obvious requirements for an article to exist in the first place):
  • directly concerned with Wikipedia (i.e. Wikitruth)
  • a freely-editable Internet encyclopedia, or a concept of one, which inspired Wikipedia in some way (e.g. Nupedia, Interpedia)
  • a fork of Wikipedia (e.g. Enciclopedia Libre)
  • a wiki-based Internet encyclopedia that is not a fork of Wikipedia but compares itself to, seeks to address a flaw in, or can otherwise be seen to be an attempt to re-invent Wikipedia (e.g. Wikinfo, Conservapedia)
Thoughts? – Qxz 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that a template like this is in general too self-referential and too likely to be full of incredibly minor links (Fuzzy Zoeller?). I'm thinking about WP:TFD but I'm not yet fully convinced to nominate it. Either way, I think your fourth criterion is way too nebulous, and needs to be scrapped, since it's going to grow to enormous proportions (SourceWatch should be in, as well as DKosopedia, off the top of my head. Pretty much every current wiki exists to do what Wikipedia does not). The second criterion may need to be refined; in what way did Interpedia actually inspire Wikipedia? They appear to have been two completely separate ideas. — coelacan — 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The self ref issue as creator of this wasn't a factor, it was the awkwardness of the history of wikipedia category that was--so I made this, to sort up the 'history of...' issues surrounding WP from birth to the future. I don't think it's actually all that self-referential as Wikipedia and the stories/articles surrounding it are notable--we need to move past the idea that articles on Wikipedia/related to it should come with some special caveats, stigma, or asterisks. They are notable or they aren't, but we shouldn't be treating an article on an aspect of Wikipedia any differently than we do one on a given type of Car or a given aspect of Microsoft, or France, or anything else. That said... I was really curious to look up the history of Wikipedia, and found the base category too hard to track in a somewhat sequential order. so, I made this template. Given how much endless press/attention wikipedia gets, and how much everyone everywhere seems to use it, the idea that people will want to know the history of the site is anything but far-fetched. hence, the need for the template. :) - Denny 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but that was only half of my issue with this. It doesn't appear that WikiZnanie, Wikiweise, Conservapedia, or Interpedia belong here. And Fuzzy Zoeller and Joshua Gardner are too minor as well. — coelacan — 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I missed GNUpedia in the list of related projects. Certainly it is historically very related to wikipedia. For me it has much more relatedness than Conservapedia, for example. Further, as for forks, sure that WikiZnanie and Wikiweise belong here. Also Interpedia is related to wikipedias history. --Ben T/C 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Notable related projects and forks" implies that Wikipedia and the listed projects are affiliated with one another. How about "Other wiki-based Internet encyclopedias" for those that are not affiliated with Wikipedia (as posted by Qxz)? As for the membership criteria, the template already indicates that it relates to the History of Wikipedia. I clarified the membership criteria on the template page. -- Jreferee 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
wouldn't that be kind of general? We'd technically be able to link every notable Wiki encyclopedia... - Denny 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Do these Related projects and forks need to show up everywhere the Template:Wikipediahistory shows up if they are not really part of the History of Wikipedia? This seems more of a way advertise other options besides Wikipedia, which is not really what the History of Wikipedia template is about. Maybe we could create a separate template something like "competitior of Wikipedia." That way, the participants in each article could decide whether it was appropriate to include template links to competitiors of Wikipedia in that article. -- Jreferee 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the harm, since it's all in the spirit of the GFDL we're all built on/supporting anyway... and any editor on any article can contribute to this template, not just their own. :) every single editor on wikipedia is supposed to be 100% equal in voice. :) - Denny 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my disappearance, my Internet died on me yesterday afternoon and a project at work called today (well, it's still calling, but I need a break). I agree that "Other wiki-based Internet encyclopedias" is a better title for the section, but that takes things way outside of "Wikipedia history", which is what this template is aiming for, is it not. I say we take out everything but forks and influences that we can cite, such as GNUpedia. Conservapedia, and even Citizendium, have nothing to do with Wikipedia's history — both might in the future, I guess, but definitely not right now. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my intention up front. Stuff directly related to the history of wikipedia--people, places, things, and then notable (i.e. they have an account) events related to Wikipedia, to show where it began, went, and is heading. I intentionally didn't want to whitewash and leave out any negative stuff, to maintain NPOV/balance, and because... well, you only learn from your past... - Denny 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format?

Well, at least on my computer, the History of Wikipedia link overlaps with the MediaWiki link. I'd fix it, but I know fuck-all about how. --Dookama 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tjstrf. Or whatever string of letters you. <3 --Dookama 07:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Mcilwraith and Joshua Gardner

These entries (on this template) are a bit odd. Neither article has any relevance to the history of Wikipedia. They're just articles about subjects who happen to have manipulated Wikipedia as a component of larger scams.

We don't (presumably) list every killer who happens to have a MySpace/LiveJournal account in those infoboxen. Neither article sheds any light on Wikipedia, and neither has led to Wikipedia policy reviews or frothing "Is Wikipedia Fatally Flawed?" editorials like Seigenthaler and Essjay.

chocolateboy 06:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Navbox generic

[edit] Proposed rewrite

Many of the things mentioned here are fairly or totally insignificant to Wikipedia's history and are not even mentioned in the History of Wikipedia article. Taking out anything not mentioned there would leave just the following.

 v • d • e  History of Wikipedia
Main articles Bomis · Nupedia · Wikipedia · Wikimedia Foundation · MediaWiki
People Jimmy Wales · Larry Sanger · Tim Shell · Wikipedia community
Events and individuals Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China · Essjay controversy · Seigenthaler controversy
Related projects and forks Enciclopedia Libre

I also suggest removing Interpedia since it was a plan for a project that never existed and never had anything to do with Wikipedia. Is there any objection to this? More relevant links to have here would be UseModWiki, Florence Nibart-Devouard, and all of Wikipedia's sister projects. Angela. 04:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as Angela's name showed up on[1] this template she wants it removed. She removed her name from the above template.[2] :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. I've never edited the template. Try checking the actual page history. Angela
It is true. You have edited the proposed template above which I was referring to. You have removed your name and Citizendium from the above template. Do not try to misrepresent my statements. Try checking the template above. It does not look good what you are doing. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Take a very close look at the above proposed template. Angela's name is missing.[3] She intentially removed here name from the above proposed template. A serious COI. This kind of behaviour is frowned upon in the community and is considered poor taste. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a proposal on a talk page. It isn't the template itself. Angela. 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
She also wants the article on her deleted.[4] She has also removed the most notable fork of Wikipedia , Citizendium. Very interesting. Its not going to happen. Is this a COI? Hmmm. I recommend we close this section. This is a quick resource for readers to become familiar with the history of Wikipedia. If we listen to Angela, we would essentially dismantle this resource list. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If no one with a COI can edit this, we have a problem since the entire Wikipedia community are linked here, so I guess that means no one in the community can edit it... Or perhaps we could look at a more objective way of deciding what's in this template by seeing what is actually mentioned in an article about the history of Wikipedia. It's totally irrelevant for one ex board member to be linked here when none of the current members - not even the chair - is mentioned. Citizendium is irrelevant to the history of Wikipedia since it has had no impact on it whatsoever, as opposed to an actual fork like Encyclopedia Libre which did. Angela. 17:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This template is more than just about the history. Read it more carefully. There is a "Related projects and forks" section too. Nice to see you have singled out Citizendium. This confirms you have bias and a COI. If you continue, I may be forced to report your COI to the noticeboard. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't single out Citizendium. I removed everything that was not mentioned in the history of Wikipedia article. Angela. 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Angela singled out which article she really wants removed from the template, "Citizendium,"[5] which is part of the "Related projects and forks" section. Angela is quick to talk about the removal of Citizendium - a rival to Wikipedia![6] Oh. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you joking? How have I singled out Citizendium? I removed 7 of the 8 supposedly "related projects". You're the only person singling out Citizendium. Angela. 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You just singled/pointed it out again. Wow. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
While it is clear that Angela has not to date had some pattern of POV edits on the template (to my knowledge anyway), I am in strongly opposed to the deletions she is proposing and especially to removing her name from the template (I placed it there FYI). However, she should be commended for proposing any controversial changes first rather then just making them. But she absolutely fits the bill for inclusion in this history template, and as a public figure that is the subject of a bio article and a key party in the history of Wikimedia projects it is laughable to think she has the right to keep a low profile by removing herself from the template. The other names of the Foundation board members are not linked bc their articles are redirects to the Wikimedia Foundation article. While they may even be hostile to Wikipedia and its sister projects, Wikitruth and Conservapedia (as well as the others) are by their very definition forks of Wikipedia. Without Wikipedia, they simply would not exist. Removing those projects hostile/unflattering to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects is providing more fodder for the criticisms of the projects that these morons are pushing. As to the "impact on Wikipedia" argument, the links included in the template are not there bc they have had a significant impact on Wikipedia. They are there bc they are directly related to the history of Wikpedia, that's why the title of the template is "History of Wikipedia" and not "Wikipedia Influences" VanTucky 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I am glad Angela did not edit the live version of the template. Anyhow, the comments she made to remove the fundamentals, related, and/or the history of Wikipedia articles is very questionable in nature. Have fun. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but I do support Angela's suggestion to add Florence Devouard and Wikipedia sister projects. Oh, and as of now, Angela is mentioned in the History of Wikipedia timeline. VanTucky 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As it has been a while and no one has commented on these particular points, I'll go ahead and add the above links. If anyone does object and hasn't said so yet, feel free to revert the changes (of course) w/o starting an edit war, and we'll discuss them. Cheers VanTucky 21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bomis?

It strikes me as confusing and useless to the leader to have the entire template begin with what is, at most, a tiny footnote in the history of Wikipedia, Bomis. I would say that based on editorial questions regarding leading the reader through the history of Wikipedia in a helpful way, this should be removed, or at the very least not the first link in the template.--Jimbo Wales 08:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bomis is part of the history of Wikipedia. Without Bomis, we may not be having this conversation now. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Could it be simply bc it's alphabetized? it should be, within the sections. That way there is no dispute. Also, everyone seems to be forgetting that the order of inclusion for links (or other equally nit-picky things) in no way is meant to be indicative of importance. You're reading too much into it. It's just a template to build the web. Besides, once again here, removing a link to an article whose subject is an important point of criticism (however inane) by those hostile to Wikipedia looks like censorship, especially when proposed by someone formerly involved with Bomis. VanTucky 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quake AID?

Since the content in the Quake AID article is original reserach which is not supported by any reliable sources, that article probably needs a complete rewrite. Having this very minor footnote in the template for Wikipedia history is "undue weight" by any standards. A very tiny website had a fight with Wikipedia, well it may be important to them, but to the history of Wikipedia? The controversy was, to my knowledge, never covered by any media of any kind, mostly because the whole thing was complete nonsense.--Jimbo Wales 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though catching Quake AID at its game may look good for Wikipedia, it's not really related to the evolution of Wikipedia. VanTucky 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiZnanie

How is it a related project or fork?--Imaginationac (Talk | Edits | Email) 06:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] style

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Wikipediahistory&diff=prev&oldid=152954876 Navbox style

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Wikipediahistory&diff=next&oldid=152954876 Navbox generic style

Here are two different styles above. Which is the preferred style for this history template. Please discuss. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia community

This article currently (since July) redirects to English Wikipedia, which isn't helpful. Shouldn't it be removed from the template? Rigadoun (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related projects and forks

Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia? Certainly not forks. They're both sort of "anti-wikipedias" (one has a blatant POV and the other's explicitly a parody) - I'm not sure I'd call these "related projects". Any objections to deleting them? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly object. A fork does not entail a positive outlook on Wikipedia. Conservapedia forked from Wikipedia for the express purpose of creating a conservative encyclopedia, but otherwise based on our model. Uncyclopedia is a fork, because it's a parody of Wikipedia. They're both forks just like Citizendium is a fork. VanTucky Talk 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is not about "positive outlook on Wikipedia" but any substantive relationship. Neither of these are actually forks in the sense that they started with Wikipedia's content and continued. They use the same software, but it's open source software, so quite literally anyone can use it. I don't think the intent of this list is to include all projects that use this software, or even all "encyclopedia" projects that use this software (there are lots of them), but rather projects that are in some way related to Wikipedia. Most of the rest are Wikimedia projects (clearly related). Citizendium was started by Larry Sanger who was one of the folks originally involved in starting Wikipedia. Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia have no relationship to Wikipedia at all, as far as I'm aware. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, how is a direct wiki parody of Wikipedia (expressly stated to be so) and a wiki encyclopedia based on our format but created directly and definitively in opposition to this one not related? Conservapedia's founder always describes the creation and execution of that site in terms of how it isn't Wikipedia. Without Wikipedia, these projects would never have been created. These sites are important stepping stones in the history of Wikipedia, their creation had a tangible impact on the project, as evidence by the loads of media coverage. VanTucky Talk 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested in other opinions about this, but I'm not buying your reasoning. A direct wiki parody (expressly stated to be so) is no more relevant to Wikipedia's history than Saturday Night Live's skits are to the history of the Presidency of George W. Bush. Wikipedia is certainly relevant to the history of both Uncyclopedia and Conservapedia, but I don't think relevance is symmetric. Mentioning either of these in a template appearing on every Wikipedia related page strikes me as an extreme example of undue weight. I suspect we're not going to agree on this. I'm willing to wait for some others to offer their opinions. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you read some of the previous discussion on this, you'll see that it's pretty split usually. But so far people seem to have bowed in favor of my point of view. You're welcome to file an RFC if you like. VanTucky Talk 03:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

There appear to be two issues here: 1)Should there be a Related projects and forks section on the template; and 2)If yes, what should it contain. As regards the first question, that has been discussed above. There are mentions in the History article of related projects and forks, so it would seem appropriate to have such a section on the template. The second question then looks at the content of the section. I hear the argument that content in the section should also be present in the main article. If the content is not notable enough to be mentioned in the main article then it would be inappropriate to simply append it to the section on the template as though the template were a trivia list. A rigorous approach needs to be taken otherwise the template will contain too much trivia and cease to be useful. Neither Uncyclopedia nor Conservapedia are mentioned in the article. Should they be? Uncyclopedia is a spoof which may be mentioned in passing as a sign of Wikipedia's success - however that is already adequately covered in the article by reference to more serious material. I see no valid reason for Uncyclopedia to be mentioned in the article, let alone in the more selective template. Conservapedia, however, could be mentioned in the main article as an example of editorial difference, the same way that Citizendium is mentioned. However, it is not vital, and the Citizendium reference is perhaps enough. An editor may decide to make reference to it in the article, and at that time consideration may be given to including it on the template, but currently, with no mention in the History article it seems inappropriate to list Conservapedia on the template. Neither article is included in the main or subcats of Category:Wikipedia. It is difficult to see any solid justification for inclusion of these two articles on the History of Wikipedia template, and this may be an example of creeping listism. I would also suggest a good scrutiny of the other articles listed on the template to ensure that all of them are mentioned in the article, and are pertinent to the history of Wikipedia, rather than merely sharing a name, software or other tangential non-pertinent relationship to Wikipedia in general. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Wikia and WikiWikiWeb as "related projects"

I've removed these two projects because they are barely mentioned in History of Wikipedia, and because:

  • For Wikia, I think it's important to be sensitive to criticism that Wikipedia somehow "favors" Wikia or supports it or otherwise is influenced by it. Wikia is clearly not a fork of Wikipedia, and it clearly is not related in the sense of covering the same topics, any more than any of the other of thousands of wikis out there are "related" to Wikipedia.
  • For WikiWikiWeb, this was clearly an inspiration for Wikipedia, but I think it's appropriate to simply mention it (as is the case now) in the History of Wikipedia article, not to more prominently feature it on the template. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, Wikia is very related to Wikipedia. It's fundamentally a for-profit branch of the WMF in all but name, so... no, it doesn't cover the same topics, but it's still related. Dookama (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikispecies?

Where is it? - rst20xx (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Wikipediahistory"
Personal tools