I-wiki policies and doctrine

[Stark]

I've made this thread here as a companion to the Imperial wiki thread, even though it's not very STvSW.

We need to nut out some policies and formats to be used on I-wiki, and I'd like to ask for input from people who have more experience with wikis. Things like structuring large concepts (like 'ISDs' or 'shields') to whether [[username]] should redirect to [[user:username]] or vice versa.

I'm sure there's plenty of stuff other wikis have learned the hard way, and hopefully we can shortcut that stuff early on.

[General Zod]

The biggest eyesore I can think of, why list so many subcategories on the front page? Right now there's a crapload of subcategories on the front and they just look cluttered. So condensing things might not be such a bad idea.

That will also free up room to add other sections that don't necessarily fit into the two rather limited categories that there is now for future expansion, such as articles on franchises besides Trek & Wars that get covered on the board frequently but are a mess to search for.

[Darth Wong]

An old friend just reminded me that one thing we also need to do is be careful of making any unsourced claims about any individuals (for example, Karen Traviss).

For example, if you say "Karen Traviss sucks Supershadow's cock" on a wiki entry, that could be interpreted as libel. However, if you say "According to SuperShadow, Karen Traviss sucks his cock", then you are only reporting what SuperShadow says, which is not libel on your part (although it could easily be libel on the part of SuperShadow).

I'm not aware of wiki editors actually getting nailed for libel, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

[General Zod]

For stubs of larger pages, such as the usergroups section, and subsections on other technical articles can we get a return-to link at the bottom? It greatly aids in navigation, especially if you're editing. I've already gone ahead and made minor changes to the usergroup pages as an example.

[The Nomad]

I'm not aware of wiki editors actually getting nailed for libel, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

A couple of French activists recently sued Wikimedia for an article making claims about their sexual orientation on wikipedia.fr. They lost, on the grounds that Wikimedia isn't responsible for what Wikipedia users edit or post .

[Mad]

For stubs of larger pages, such as the usergroups section, and subsections on other technical articles can we get a return-to link at the bottom? It greatly aids in navigation, especially if you're editing. I've already gone ahead and made minor changes to the usergroup pages as an example.

I don't care for them. The user could have gotten to the page from anywhere, so the browser's "back" button would return as necessary. A "return to ..." link would be confusing under that circumstance, aside from simply being ugly for a wiki.

The category system should be used instead, to manage that.

[General Zod]

I don't care for them. The user could have gotten to the page from anywhere, so the browser's "back" button would return as necessary. A "return to ..." link would be confusing under that circumstance, aside from simply being ugly for a wiki.

When you're editing a page, you have to search to get back to the main page in order to go back to the parent article after you save or else the back button just takes you back to your edit.

[Mad]

When you're editing a page, you have to search to get back to the main page in order to go back to the parent article after you save or else the back button just takes you back to your edit.

So click "Back" again (or a couple more times). Or open the editor in a new tab/window. Or click on the "what links here" link. You'd have to do that anyway if you got to the page through a link from some other article than the expected "parent" page.

[General Zod]

So click "Back" again (or a couple more times). Or open the editor in a new tab/window. Or click on the "what links here" link. You'd have to do that anyway if you got to the page through a link from some other article than the expected "parent" page.

Or people could just include a link to the parent article when they create a stub. If the user really did come from anywhere a 'return to' link gives them an immediate way of knowing what the stub is apart of.

[Mad]

Or people could just include a link to the parent article when they create a stub. If the user really did come from anywhere a 'return to' link gives them an immediate way of knowing what the stub is apart of.

That's what categories are for.

[phongn]

A couple of French activists recently sued Wikimedia for an article making claims about their sexual orientation on wikipedia.fr. They lost, on the grounds that Wikimedia isn't responsible for what Wikipedia users edit or post .

Yes, but it still goes to a lawsuit, which takes time and money (even in a loser-pays system) from the defendant. I'm not sure how well the safe-harbor provision will hold up under Canadian law.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Or people could just include a link to the parent article when they create a stub. If the user really did come from anywhere a 'return to' link gives them an immediate way of knowing what the stub is apart of.

But that isn't necessarily possible. Unless there's a categorical heirarchy (which obsoletes 'back' links anyway) not every page is necessarily a sub-page of another. Take the The Alderaan Argument's connection with Death Star, for example.

[General Zod]

But that isn't necessarily possible. Unless there's a categorical heirarchy (which obsoletes 'back' links anyway) not every page is necessarily a sub-page of another. Take the The Alderaan Argument's connection with Death Star, for example.

I specified 'stubs' for a reason you know.

[phongn]

I think user:username would be a good idea. Also, we might want to figure out how to segment out the "board culture" stuff from the debate archive.

[General Zod]

Also, we might want to figure out how to segment out the "board culture" stuff from the debate archive.

Why not just create a separate content section for board culture on the front page?

[Mad]

So what are we going to do for a quoting/citation policy? It would be nice to have an easy way to mention a source for certain tidbits. (I haven't looked into how Wikipedia does it.) This would help reduce instances of someone deleting something obscure simply because they didn't know about it.

The help section should, of course, cover any citation policy and how to put in a citation.

[General Zod]

One guideline I think should be implemented as absolutely essential, do not edit people's posts in the discussion section of a page if you didn't put it there yourself unless you're an admin. There's absolutely no reason to delete someone else's discussion entry.

[Ted C]

One guideline I think should be implemented as absolutely essential, do not edit people's posts in the discussion section of a page if you didn't put it there yourself unless you're an admin. There's absolutely no reason to delete someone else's discussion entry.

I'll second that motion.

[Edi]

I think user:username would be a good idea.

I second this. Articles on existing members should be on their user pages if they have them. I, for example wrote a basic outline of myself into the user pages, but there's an empty article with my name on it that is linked from the participants page.

[Stark]

I'll put it here too: I have no idea how to implement wiki-style referencing (ie, small supertext footnote-link to an external link at the bottom of the page). We really need some referencing going on.

[Ace Pace]

I think user:username would be a good idea.

I second this. Articles on existing members should be on their user pages if they have them. I, for example wrote a basic outline of myself into the user pages, but there's an empty article with my name on it that is linked from the participants page.

Done, this link won't redirect.

[Mad]

I'll put it here too: I have no idea how to implement wiki-style referencing (ie, small supertext footnote-link to an external link at the bottom of the page). We really need some referencing going on.

I'll put my reply here, too:

Apparently, an extension needs to be installed in order to do citations and footnotes the way Wikipedia does.

With that extension, you can enter something like:

Code: Select all

He said, "Good morning." <ref>Trust me, he said it, okay?</ref>

And have a special tag at the bottom of the page to "catch" the footnotes. Then a footnote link would appear after "Good morning" and the link would be the source ("Trust me").

But that extension isn't installed, so anything we'd do would need to be done manually somehow for the time being.

We could use templates to make citing easier, as Wikipedia apparently does, but the footnote would still have to be manually done as long as the extension isn't installed.

[Stark]

Sorry, Mad, if you posted it elsewhere: I must have missed it. Thanks, though.

[Darth Wong]

Attention all: this is a matter of some urgency. We have not yet defined a usage license for the wiki. I have been informed by another wiki administrator that if you do not bother to define a usage license, it is possible for someone to suddenly decide that he owns everything he ever posted on your wiki and demand that you remove it. This person could be a minor contributor who adds material to an important page and then demands the removal of the entire page until such time as you can identify and then edit out his contributions. This can become a nightmarishly complex operation if you have edits upon edits upon edits, so some other wiki admins in the past have been forced to delete entire sections of the wiki that were "contaminated" by a single problem user.

One license which has been suggested to me is this one, from CreativeCommons.Org (they have many different licenses there). If we choose it, we would add a corresponding link to the "Policies" page, which every user is instructed to read before contributing. There are instructions for adding a licensing link here.

Given the fact that there is some urgency attached to this situation, I am adding this license notice to the Policies page now. If we feel that a different license is more appropriate, then we can discuss that and perhaps change the license in the next day or two. Please give feedback.

[Ted C]

If possible, you might want to include acceptance of this agreement in the registration process, so anyone who contributes has automatically accepted the license agreement.