From Software Wiki

[edit] Hello again!

I just happened upon this because it was categorized under "Programming" on Central. I recategorized it to Technology instead, as I think that's more relevant.

I wonder if you would like this wiki to also be a member of Interwiki Integration? By the way, I'm eager for comments on that page. Can the government be built any better? Should the requirements be different? --Jesdisciple (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not currently a bureaucrat or sysop on this wiki, so it'd be inappropriate for me to make any official policy decisions. I may apply to adopt this wiki at some point, though. I don't see anything wrong with the requirements, but between the slightly unfriendly wording and calling it a "government", rather than a voluntary collaboration, is likely make some wiki communities think they are giving up their individuality for the sake of drawing a few more visits. Words like "loosely mandatory" and "no negative incentives" do little to highlight the positive aspects of the treatise. And by stating that the requirements are "adjustable via consensus" makes it sound like 1.) there may be negative aspects of being a member wiki later, and 2.) that decisions are strictly binding on the wiki, not just as a condition of membership. inclusivedisjunction 23:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're the only editor, you are the community - even if you don't have sysop privileges. If an admin happens to be lurking in the shadows, they should recognize boldness as a virtue and work toward a consensus with you. But that issue is beside my original point.

On a related note, you may be interested in the Society Gardens program, which I just learned about today.

I'm interested in what "slightly unfriendly wording" you see in the article... (Or is that what you already detailed?) I tend to write pretty bland stuff when it's formal.

As for "government," I wasn't sure what else to call it, and I wouldn't use that term in the article. It consists of the current members validating both the joiners and each other against the requirements and reaching consensus on whether each wiki passes. "Loosely" just means the strictness is subject to consensus.

The way I intended it, a "negative incentive" is not a reason to not participate. An incentive is a reason to participate; "negative" or "positive" specifies the nature of the reason. A negative incentive is a retaliation against someone who doesn't comply, like a boycott. Integration could be made exclusive to member wikis, so members would be discouraged from linking to non-members, and that's the negative incentive I had in mind.

I'm not certain what you mean by "strictly binding," but members would be required to maintain the integration which bought their membership. Otherwise, the program is essentially pointless and non-compliant members unfairly gain traffic from the compliant. However, I expect the community to aid members in compliance and other things (like templates). --Jesdisciple (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There was one other person who made edits on this wiki a short time ago, albeit very small. Should he happen to return (I personally doubt it), he'd probably regret not being part of the decision. Other wikis linking to this one might actually rejuvenate it, though, so I've already linked articles on other wikis to counterparts on this one.

I'm just saying that the document would probably look rather complex and intimidating to many people. Maybe one of Wikia's staff members, who are better at dealing with people than I am, could offer a better analysis of it. IMHO, interwiki compacts should be made by a person's good word and a virtual handshake, with no need for any sort of charter. After all, I didn't need a ruleset to start making interwiki links. And, in fact, in actually led me to several wikis that I didn't even know existed (due to their stagnation, mostly).

Bottom line: I care much more about "reaching out" to other communities than I do about reciprocation. No wiki is going to mind me linking to them (if anybody is even on them anymore), and I highly doubt anyone will care if I stick a nice little link to my home wiki(s) at the bottom of a page, as long as it's relevant. The Project:WikiNode will probably not be what prompts a user to visit other wikis, anyway. Once other people see interwiki linking happening in articles and start to do the same, then you can worry about committees and such. But right now, any agreements and decisions can probably be worked out with individual bureaucrats (incidentally, I'm actually not a bureaucrat on any active wiki, though Darrelljon edits infrequently, so I usually act as the de facto manager). inclusivedisjunction 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see w:Forum:Interwiki_Integration.

Project:WikiNode is not for newbies; it's for editors who wonder what wiki might cover an irrelevant topic best.

On the topic of committees, accountability, etc., I'm most concerned about editors joining the program for the incoming links and then trying to restrict outgoing links. I don't think anyone else would have any problem with the format, especially if the community aids compliance. --Jesdisciple (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)