Talk:List of wikis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Why was a wiki removed? 2 Vote for Deletion 3 List of wikis 4 Links 5 Cleanup 6 Remove IntegralWiki from Math section 7 Criteria for inclusion 8 Meatball: Biggest wikis 9 notable 10 Organization 11 Deleterious Deleting 12 My thoughts 13 reason for move back 14 LyricWiki 15 Many or most of these articles don't meet notability requirements 16 Wikicars 17 notability, again 18 WikIran 19 Unfair deletion 20 List of Wikis suggestion 21 A forgotten wiki

[edit] Why was a wiki removed?

• Is there any reason that GamerWiki (http://www.gamerwiki.com/) should not be on this list, when others, such as GamingWiki, and Encyclopedia Gamia, are on it? -- Tyagi 22:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

See discussion below, and the note now found at the top of the article. --Chriswaterguy · talk 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note the dates of comments! However, I'm now looking to get the GamerWiki article undeleted. Tim 17:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

People in the VfD discussion thought that this list should be only for notable wikis. I agree. Wikipedia is not a web directory. I removed a wiki from the list, which was judged as unnotable in an article deletion vote, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arija wiki. It is a clear precedent of an unnotable wiki. -Hapsiainen 22:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of wikis

If you do not believe that a list of wikis is encyclopædic, then you should put the page up for deletion. In the meantime, ¿why delete Peaceful Beginnings, but keep PornWiki with one less registered user and SailWiki with only two more users? ¿What is your cutoff? Even though it is new, it already has three books for publication in progress (Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma in English and a book comming into being in both French and English simultaneously (Circumcisions, the child’s point of view (The fourth sex) - Sigismond, Circoncisions, le point de vue de l'enfant (Le quatrième sexe) - Sigismond)).

Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma already has 18 chapters in various states of completion. ¿Does that count for anything? The earlier chapters already have illustrations. The books comming into being in French and English are not as far along, but in their own way are more ambitious — written in French and English simultaneously. One of our members promised to create a locationbaricon and siteicon by the end of the year.

If you truly believe that a list of wikis is unencyclopædic, you should list it on VfD.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 00:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"If you do not believe that a list of wikis is encyclopædic, then you should put the page up for deletion." I belive that the topic of this list fits to Wikipedia. The topic or the idea is to have a list of notable wikis. Notable is something that is worth for an own article in Wikipedia. You only delete the pages that have a topic that doesn't fit here. This article isn't such.

But this page is currently in horrible condition. It clearly lists many wikis that are not notable enough to have very own articles about them. I have tried to prune this list. Look at its edit history for my edits. I removed PornWiki before you wrote to this talk page, so it is strange the you complain about it.

You don't seem to realize, what kind of effort is to clean up the list. First, you take a look at a wiki, its statistics and recent changes. If it seems a minor wiki, then you search from Google if the wiki is often discussed or linked. The copies of this list and maybe a Wikipedia article about the wiki muddle the search results. You test, if the page has some Alexa ranking. And then you do conclusions. It is more easy, if the non-notable wiki hasn't yet an article about itself here. You just remove its entry from the list and write the explanation in edit summary. But if the article exists, you persuade others to delete it. So you prepare an AfD page, write detailed reasons for deletion (I am a slow wirter, and my mother tongue isn't even English, so it takes time), and then watch the deletion discussion you started. When the page gets deleted, you have to remember to remove its entry from the list. I have requested several articles about wikis to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaraWiki, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Ink Travel Wiki, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arija wiki.

I also have other things to do in Wikipedia, and outside Wikipedia, so you can't demand me to work full-time. Pruning of the list is quite boring, but no-one else seems keen on it. I am not interested in the subject of the wikis that I remove from the list. I am only interested if they are notable.

It isn't that unique that people write books in wikis. You certainly know Wikibooks. Also, people are updating Lawrence Lessig's book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace in a wiki. It has received more publicity than your project, but the wiki still doesn't have an own article. Th wiki is just mentioned in the article about the book. And there are many dusty wikis and several wiki book writing projects that have frozen or stopped. If you would first finish one book, then you have chance to gain some notability through the book. There is nothing new in multilingual wikis. There are also wikis that write exactly the same text in several languages, some software documentation projects are such. So writing a book in several languages in one wiki isn't very groundbreaking. –Hapsiainen 03:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

When I see a list of wikis, I add my wiki to it. If you want only a list of notable wikis, ¿why not move this article to list of notable wikis and define some criteria on the page for inclusion? ¿Does it surprise you that people just add items to a list about that kind of item when no stated criteria other than being that kind of item exists? If I would start an article called list of 10-fingered people, I would not be surprised that thousands of people add themselves to the list daily. If you would move the article to list of notable wikis and define what notable is in the first paragraph, your job would get much more simple. — — Ŭalabio‽ 06:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The top of the article says that the list is only for notable wikis. The AfD discussion says so. How is this so dificult to understand? There are also other lists that don't have a mention of notability in their titles. (List of Irish artists, List of Linux games) Still, you can't put any Irish that has drawn something or a game there.

There is currently no official definition of wiki notability. People can only see the past AfD votes and judge by them, or take a risk and create an article. People are currently writing a notability guideline for websites. Also page "Wikipedia:Google test" has some criteria. It is impossible to have an exact criteria, though. -Hapsiainen 14:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Any person in Ireland with art in a gallery logically belongs in List of Irish artists, just as any 10-fingered person belongs in a list of 10-fingered people. Frankly, you are your own worst enemy. You should move the article to list of notable wikis.

Notability itself is problematic. ¿Should the first wiki devoted to something count for anything? You should use objective criteria.

— Ŭalabio‽ 00:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your example isn't valid. The works in galleries have already faced selection unlike wikis in a list that lists any wiki. I wouldn't list people that have participated a painting course, and have had an exhibition of their works in a local library, as artists in Wikipedia. Then I would deserve an article, too. I think that this is a better example, than "anyone draws", because some publicity isn't enough publicity. There is no completely objective criteria for notability, since any notability criteria would be a value judgement. And there is not even any official notability criteria, see Wikipedia:Notability. There are only some guidelines. But you are right that people should be explained whan kind of wikis they clearly shouldn't put to this list. -Hapsiainen 20:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If this is a List of Wikis like the title suggests then it should list ALL Wikis. If this is not a List of Wikis then the title should be changed. --Mjrmtg 11:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Does List of American Artists list every American artist? Of course not. Its implied that Wikipedia lists are only lists of important/notable subjects. Wickethewok 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• • The List of American Artists clearly states at the top that it is not a complete list of American artists. Nowhere on the List of Wikis does is state the justification for making the list or not making the list. --Mjrmtg 00:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The first sentence reads "This is not a complete list of wikis (sites based on the wiki model); only wikis with their own entry in Wikipedia are listed here." That seems like a pretty good definition for the list. That means that since an article must meet WP:WEB to be an article, any wikis here must meet WP:WEB. It would be inappropriate to state "This is a list of wikis that meet WP:WEB" at the top, so this makes perfect sense to me. If you still find this confusing, we could make it say "This is a list of notable wikis" or something like that. Wickethewok 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Why does the List of American Artists have entries that do not have their own entries in Wikpedia (can tell because of the red font)? Should lists not be uniform in some way? All entries must be linked to another wiki page (or not)? --Mjrmtg 11:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Lists are not uniform. Maybe they should be, but right now there isn't anything requiring them to have similar criteria for inclusion. The reason for implementing this sort of policy here, is that this particular article gets spammed fairly often with wikis that have often just started or are otherwise using WP as a billboard. As the American artists list is set up now, all entries are for people who should meet WP:BIO (theoretically), just as all entries listed here should meet WP:WEB. For complete lists of wikis, there are always the external links at the bottom that are have links to lists of wikis with less encyclopedic criteria for inclusion. Wickethewok 13:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. In other list articles it is usual to exclude links, and to exclude those entries which do not have an article (if they are not notable enough for an article, they are not notable to be listed). Just zis Guy you know? 13:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and there are some related articles that are even worse. Check out Comparison of content management systems for a real redlink trainwreck. I plan to clean them out as soon as I get a minute, unless someone beats me to it. · rodii · 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

In line with normal practice for list articles, and the consensus at AfD, and the cleanup tag itself, I have cleaned this list. It now includes only those Wikis which have articles (hopefully not redirects, if you fond one please feel free to remove it), and no weblinks (WP:NOT a link farm). It is still long, but that's not necessarily a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent cleanup. I also took out the Skepticwiki external link (no internal article), added after your mass cleanup. --Rob 19:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove IntegralWiki from Math section

Integral wiki has nothing to do with integrals, its about Integral theory

Done —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Singkong2005 (talk • contribs) .

? I did this ten days ago. [1] · rodii · 04:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

What is the core criteria for inclusion a wiki must have for it to be put onto this list? I have two wikis I would like to see put on here (Kingdom of Loathing Wiki) (AcmlmWiki). The former is a often-updated wiki about the MMORPG Kingdom of Loathing, and the latter is a still-under-construction wiki about an online community about ROM Hacking. Would I need to do anything significant, or just slap them in? --GUTTERTAHAH 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just slap them in.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Almighty Rajah (talk • contribs) .

See the comment on the article page: This is not a complete list of wikis (sites based on the wiki model); only wikis with their own entry in Wikipedia are listed here, as Wikipedia considers wikis without an entry in Wikipedia to be not notable. For a complete listing of all wikis, see WikiIndex." So there you go--are those two wikis independently notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? If so, make a wikilink to the article--but an under-construction wiki is almost by definition not notable. See WP:WEB for some thoughts on notability for websites, including wikis. I wouldn't recommend just slapping them in. · rodii · 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all very well, but the criteria for whether a Wiki has an entry on Wikipedia is flakey at best. For example, Encyclopedia Gamia has an entry on Wikipedia, but GamerWiki, which has more pages, covers more games, and has a better structure, had its Wikipedia entry deleted. Tim 09:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice Tyagi's question at the top of the page! Tim

• The criteria for inclusion is WP:WEB, which is a set of guidelines for all websites, including Wikis. Wickethewok 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, then half the Wikis on this list shouldn't be either on this list or in Wikipedia at all. Tim 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would not wager against that. I've gone through this list every once in awhile and nom'd nn wikis for deletion. Our requirements for Wikis shouldn't be any less than any other website just because they are based on the same paradigm. Wickethewok 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. Now, I've just got to dig out the mentions of GamerWiki in the Guardian, on Ceefax, and in Retro Gamer ... Tim 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though WikiIndex is a key resource, even mentioned in key places as a resource by WP itself, it does not seem to be deemed worth of an article.--69.87.200.5 01:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meatball: Biggest wikis

This link is way back in 2004. The chart really needs updating and I want to see the current stats. Anomo 09:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] notable

Maybe the name of this page should be changed to List of Wikipedia entries of Notable Wiki-sites, or List of articles on independent wikis. Greetings, Sacca 04:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

• Shouldn't we just pick whether this list is going to be alphabetical or by topic? Having both makes editing and reading awkward. I like the sorting by general subject, since alphabetical is already done by the category, but there really aren't enough notable wikis to demand a category sorting. Thoughts? Wickethewok 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleterious Deleting

I've been out of the loop for a long time (due to being in a country with sometime restrictions), but I was disappointed to see this page lose its comprehensiveness. Is it really harming something to just list all subject wikis regardless of whether they have their own Wikipedia article page? Since it is subjective anyways as to what may merit its own page, why not let the site visitors determine what is significant and what is not? Or, at least asterisk the sites which are or are not "significant". Although it makes sense for Wikipedia to limit its articles to noteworthy pages (i.e., not a page about my favorite dishes), it a little delete-happy I think to so narrowly restrict lists as has been done on this page. I have seen this jump-to-delete attitude way too frequently at Wikipedia and rather than being rule-driven, it would be nice to see a more practical approach which can be useful to this site's visitors...best wishes, Brettz9 13:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't just link to endless irrelevant wikis and websites, and that this page should be linking notable wikis, preferably which have not been listed by the people who own/have founded that wiki.

However, I think this problem could be resolved by having a link at the top of the page to a prominent external wiki directory, a another article which lists them. At the moment wikiindex.com is listed at the bottom of the page in the external links. A message at the top of the page could state that this article is only for notable wikis, and that a more complete directory, including less notable wikis, can be found at wikiindex.com (or some other directory, although that's the only one I'm aware of). Markdarb 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thats not a bad idea. That seems like it could reduce spamming of this page and increase its usefulness simultaneously. Wickethewok 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

IAWTC. --Neurophyre^(talk) 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reason for move back

Lists of articles are not usually titled "List of articles about United States presidents" or the like, so that fact that most links are wikilinks shouldn't be a rename. I won't move war, but I felt my reasoning was sound enough to effect this move. Gotyear 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with Gotyear. Wickethewok 17:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Also agree with the move back. --- RockMFR 20:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• I prefer the title list of wikis. The title doesn't need to reflect that most of the wikis on the page have articles, and it's possibly self-refential for Wikipedia to suggest that anyway. Angela. 17:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LyricWiki

I would like to add LyricWiki to the list but I'm not sure in which section it belongs. Please help... --Dirk Gently 12:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• It would probably go under the "Arts..." section, maybe under a music sub-heading? Wickethewok 17:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many or most of these articles don't meet notability requirements

This article has major problems and inconsistencies, mainly as a result of the very restrictive notability criteria for web content. Either this list has to be culled to a point where it's very short and not very useful, or the notability requirements have to change.

I have just carried out a check of 32 of the articles about wikis listed in List of wikis - the 16 under Science and technology and the 8 under Personal and societal. Of the 32, only one, Intellipedia, definitely meets the notability requirements. Of the others:

• OpenWetWare gets 3 very brief mentions in publications, plus another two articles available only to subscribers. Survived an AfD.
• Galbijim Wiki has 2 blog posts in its external links.
• Dispersive PDE Wiki, DKosopedia, Campaigns Wikia, Integralwiki aren't even articles about those wikis, but redirects to related topics.
• WikiServer & UseModWiki are not about wiki sites, but about wiki engines.
• JurisPedia - links one article (in french).
• Most offer no evidence of their notability.

I think most of us wikiholics would recognize that WikiWikiWeb is definitely notable, but the article is unreferenced, so technically it doesn't meet the criteria. Others are no doubt in the same state. MeatballWiki is similar, only offering one passing reference in a BW Online article.

Notes about my motivation: I considered adding Appropedia (the wiki site for appropriate technology, sustainability and international development) but I didn't as it doesn't meet the notability criteria. However, I now discover that other wikis are on here in spite of seeming to have no more notability, or perhaps less in some cases.

This inconsistent treatment is bad for Wikipedia's quality, and is unfair on many wikis that aren't listed.

Suggested solution: My main aim here is to highlight the problem. My suggestion, though, is that the notability criteria for web content should be changed, giving alternative ways to be considered notable, based on the level of activity and/or page hits, size of community and taking into account Google and Alexa rankings.

It's worth noting that factors like this are mentioned in discussion about deletion of articles[2] although they are not actually mentioned in the notability requirements.

If even very important wikis like WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki don't have articles that meet the notability requirements, clearly the requirements are much too restrictive. Or am I missing something? --Chriswaterguy · talk 02:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree, and it's something that doesn't just affect this page. Many other pages link to this page, including Template:Gamecleanup which uses the list of "specialised gaming wikis" on this page to indicate where content should go. Yet this list includes Encyclopedia Gamia and not GamerWiki even though the latter is larger, longer established, and covers a slightly different area to EG. Basically the decisions made here affect not only this page.

What's more, as you say the notability criteria have never been consistenyl applied. Using the same example, GamerWiki's article on Wikipedia has been refused undeletion despite it featuring in articles in two (print) magazines, a UK national newspaper and an online editorial. EG's article was not deleted in the first place, although no proof of notability was given at all. It's enough to make you just want to give up! Tim 02:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicars

I'd like to know where could Wikicars be added? It is a wiki-based site with a single-minded focus on cars and everything auto-related.

Red_marquis 6:51 pm, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notability, again

I know alexa ranks aren't everything, but can we define some rank above which inclusion is uncontroversial? I don't care very much either way, but I find it difficult to understand that we delete CreationWiki but keep Conservapedia, when the former has clearly a better ranking. I took the liberty of listing religious-pov wikis with ranks better than Conservapedia, on the basis that a full article on Conservapedia passed Afd, so that it appears fair to at least list wikis of higher ranks. I suggest ranks better than 250,000 or so should be fair game (for being mentioned, not for getting their own article!), and ranks above 1,000,000 should be excluded as unnotable in any case. dab (𒁳) 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we could also reproduce m:List of largest wikis here, since it is not actually "meta" material, but a list of sites regardless of their association with mediawiki. dab (𒁳) 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Alexa ranks aren't anything. I'm much against using Alexa rank as a criteria for inclusion. I'm not in favor of doing it by article count, # of edits, or # of users either, as all of those can easily be artificially inflated by the wiki creators through bots or whatever. Any other ideas? With so many wikis springing up, I'm highly concerned about this becoming a spamboard like List of Webcomics used to be. Wickethewok 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• yes, we have to have some clear guideline. I know the problem with Alexa, which essentially measures a subset of Microsoft users, but it's the best thing we have short of counting google hits or referring to discussions in notable publications. The suggestion is to set a minimal Alexa rank, beyond which we don't need to consider a site. Let's face it, whatever we come up with will be arbitrary, so we might as well just set some arbitrary yet reasonable requirements. dab (𒁳) 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikIran

Add WikIran[3] to the list of geographical wiki communities. I'm not able to do so because I'm not a registered wikipedia user.201.50.130.45 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair deletion

Why can all these other mediawiki and non-mediawiki based wiki's be listed here, but when I list my wiki, WikiStock.com, it gets deleted?--Rovo79 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see the AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikistock. You may apply for a deletion review at WP:DRV if you want. Wickethewok 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the information, I will look into it. Thankyou Wicket.--Rovo79 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Wikis suggestion

This follows on from a discussion on the Conservapedia talk page - an "compare and contrast" article on the various wikis, now there are enough of them. Jackiespeel 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• That could be a good idea, but what would you be comparing and contrasting? Keep in mind that original research is no good. Wickethewok 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was putting the idea in the air.

Some possibilities:

How do the computer related and other "grouped" wikis compare and contrast; the range of topics covered in various other wikis, the various wiki-like structures.

See the discussions on the Conservapedia talk page - the methods of operation differ quite significantly from that of Wikipedia.

I think it would be possible to create something on the "allowable precis/overview" side rather than the OR side (there is a distinction).

Jackiespeel 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A forgotten wiki

Theres also en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki. It's a wiki about Battlestar Galactica. I didn't see it on this page. So I thought you might want to know and put it on there. --Ladywater 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)