Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services/Archive 3

Whole article
I have a problem with the existence of the article in general. Wikipedia is here to cover encyclopedic topics. Wiki farm is a topic. Comparison of wiki farms seems more like a review guide or something. It doesn't, to me, sound like something even compatible with our mission, and as shown on WP:NOT. DreamGuy (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to put the article up for AfD, then. I'm sure people would love an article to go up for deletion for a fourth time. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the wiki farms listed have their own articles and appear notable, so I don't think we need another AfD. We do need to get the list inclusion criteria resolved though.  Just having an Alexa listing seems too broad to me, and not all the entries even meet that criteria. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just commented in the previous talk section concerning Alexa rankings and other things. Hopefully we can continue further discussion there concerning Alexa rankings, the URL column, and inclusion criteria. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that these "comparison of" articles in general at best skirt the borders of WP:OR and are not really what an encyclopaedia is for. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so this article survived yet another AfD. What now? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As suggested on the AfD, I think we should rename the article back to "List of Wikifarms". This article really is for all intents and purposes a stand-alone list. Themfromspace (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not matter to me whether it is titled as a list or a comparison. I see no problem with changing the title if no one disagrees. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Change to simple list?
I'm inclined to making this just a list of wiki farms, but keeping the text about wikifarms. There are multiple WP:OR problems here, brought up in the AfD, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP problems (for example, listing the cost). --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Free versus paid is fairly normal to indicate in software lists. I don't think exact costs should be named. They can't be maintained accurately. And different vendors sell the same product for different prices.


 * What WP:OR do you see? I don't see any original research. I don't see how this software list has a point of view. WP:NPOV. I don't see how WP:SOAP applies either. This software list is similar to many others. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont see anything wrong with the page as it is, I only think the title should be changed. There's nothing wrong with having extra information about the elements on the list, in fact its the lists that have no further details about the elements that I feel should be improved upon.  Take the List of longest suspension bridges.  It's a featured list on Wikipedia and it has more information than just the individual elements of the list.  The cost of these wikifarms is a vital aspect of the comparison and shouldn't be left out.  It isn't soapboxing at all, and the list isn't telling you which wikifarm to choose, just how much they cost (the expensive ones might be worth the price, after all). Themfromspace (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, the OR problems were brought up in the AfD. The entire comparison table is original research.  Because there are no independent sources to determine how to give proper weight to the information, it's all violating NPOV as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not original research. Nearly all software and hosting lists have similar feature tables. The main sources for the features are primary sources. The features either exist or they don't. So there is no weighting involved, and thus no violation of WP:NPOV. See Featured Lists for other examples. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Other articles have the same problems. That's no excuse to ignore consensus. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Village pump discussion
Comparison of wiki farms is mentioned here:
 * Village pump (technical) --Timeshifter (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"External links" template
There is a template at the top of the page that says "" However the only external links I can find in the article are: What is the template about? Shreevatsa (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) One link to
 * 2) Links in the referencs, mainly a bunch of links to Alexa.com rankings.


 * I wrote the following before seeing your comment. We must have been writing our comments at around the same time.


 * Template:external links


 * User:Shreevatsa removed the external links template below from the article. See this diff:
 * 


 * His edit summary was: there is only one link in "External links" section, and the rest of the external links are references


 * Shreevatsa is correct. There are no external links in the main part of the article according to Wikipedia's definition of external links. See External links. All the links in the main part of the article go to the reference section of the article called "Notes."


 * There is only one link in the "External links" section of the article.


 * User:Ronz reverted Shreevatsa. See this diff:
 * 


 * His edit summary was: Undid revision 265986145 by Shreevatsa (talk) actually, there are many)


 * Ronz is incorrect. See higher up on this talk page. Ronz started and titled that "Alexa references" talk section. Ronz wrote there (emphasis added): "I've formatted all the Alexa traffic rankings references."
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Shreevatsa: The article contains multiple external links. Some appear to be references.  The references should be formatted as such, the rest moved to the External links section or removed. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The version of the article that Shreevatsa and I were referring to was this one:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=265992096
 * All the Alexa ratings were in reference form. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Commonsense
The removal of all of the links to wikifarms is irrational on so many levels.

Editors are going to find this pages, and then have to cut and paste the names of these wikifarms to go to these sites. Once again, editors are diminishing the general usefulness of wikipedia, deleting other editors contributions, and pushing wikipedians of wikipedia, by telling editors by their actions that: "Your contributions are not welcome here".

I know there is some guideline somewhere that supports these deletions, but what about simple commonsense?

The guideline templates state:
 * It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Commonsense is lacking in abundance here. This is yet another case of outside editors, who have contributed nothing to the article before, using a rule as an edit war tool, to push their idea of what wikipedia should be on everyone else. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you follow WP:CON rather than attacking other editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You do not have consensus, Ronz. WP:CON. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have it reversed. You certainly have no consensus here, nor on any of the other articles where you have tried to do the same thing.  Please move on. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What other list articles? I do not often work on them. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed to talk
I removed the following sentence:
 * Although, the public typically is exposed to wiki farms via these public services, the technique of running multiple wikis from the same code is what defines a wiki farm and, of course, can be implemented on private servers.

It makes no sense to me, and seems to already be covered in the introduction (redundant) Ikip (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
Ronz reverted User:Ikip, and removed all the wiki farm site URLs. See

His edit summary was "removed urls per consensus - see WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK, and talk page discussions." There never was consensus to do so. Including the first time Ronz removed them. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is clear. Please read and follow [WP:CON]]. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You did not have consensus the last time you removed them Jan. 7, 2009: . WP:CON. See the talk page discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that such url links don't belong. We're both very aware of this.  Let's follow WP:CON and move on. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexa references and URL column
I think the best solution would be to use both.

See Ronz's version: All the Alexa ratings are in reference form in that version.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=265992096

See Ikip's version: All the wiki farms have their URL next to them for easy fact checking as primary references.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=266323705

I suggesting combining and refining the versions.

One possible refinement is to add the site URLs after the site names. For an example of this in a computer-related list see:
 * Comparison of Internet forum software

See: No original research for guideline info.


 * "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."

The primary-source site URLs in this case are used to fact check the feature column entries in the second table in the article, and the existence of the wiki farm. See previous talk. User:Angela used the site URLs to check for defunct wiki farms, and to see whether the sites were wiki farms.

Here are some possible formats:

We could remove the site URL listed in the table here for Central Desktop since the site URL is on the Central Desktop wiki page.

I forget to mention that the current version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=266349440 of the article is not good for another reason. The Alexa URLs are labeled with the Alexa rating number. Reference links are never supposed to be labeled within the main text. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ikip's edits
So Ikip seems to have readded the URL column. I thought we had already discussed this and that the consensus was to remove it. Perhaps I was wrong? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There never was consensus to remove the reference column from the table as was done in January 2009. The primary references had been in the table for years. See previous talk. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the column. Ikip has yet to address any of the concerns with the policies and guidelines that have been discussed. --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The last entry was timeshifter, who was opposed to the removal of the URLs. That makes two people who are opposed, two who support. I feel it is best for wikipedia, and best for the readers of this page too have these links. Ikip (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus guideline is WP:EL. External links do not going in the body of an article. 2005 (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Spamming links in this way violates multiple policies and guidelines.  Two votes does not negate these policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:EL is a guideline, "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." There are several sites like this on wikipedia.
 * I am sorry so consensus doesn't matter? Wait obviously it does, per Ronz comments above:
 * "I've gone ahead and removed the links, following general consensus...I see no comments from anyone other than myself that are relevant. Basic consensus building requires addressing actual concerns and wider consensus. This is not a vote. See WP:CON for more information on proper consensus-building...Just to summarize, the URL column should be removed per consensus above"
 * How did we get to create WP:EL in the first place? I am not "spamming" links. These links were here well before all of us were editing.
 * As the policy WP:IAR states: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." Removing these links is harmful to this page. Ikip (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WIARM: "'Ignore all rules' does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." --Ronz (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is simply a case of denying the problems that we've had and continue to have with such links. This is spam (advertising).  It has and continues to attract spamming (addition of links and nothing else to multiple articles). --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to bring up the humorous essays. And no one needs to WP:IAR as there ARE rules in subsections of WP:EL for these circumstances. You guys need to both step back and take a deep breath. An earlier version of the article has these links.... but as set in references. A rollback to THAT vesrion gives both sides a win, rather than duke it out over interpretations of WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. This way the links can provide proper WP:V of the Wikifarm concepts being described. Or else, a discussion is in order to address what is or is not allowed by WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE as those were included in WP:EL for a reason.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this: "An earlier version of the article has these links.... but as set in references. A rollback to THAT vesrion gives both sides a win, rather than duke it out over interpretations of WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE." I returned the article to that format. Please see the following talk sections. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Winning" is not a topic here. And IAR arguments are the last refuge of nothing.  We have guidelines and policies.  Links to these sites are clearly prohibited by EL and other guidelines, and they are not refernces either.  That makes no sense.  There are two clear, longstanding things in play here.  the first is external links do not go into the body of an artcile.  the second is that if something is not noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article, it should not be externally linked instead.  (On top of that, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.  My goodness why is this dead horse still being beaten?  Wikipedia articles should not and are not structured as link farms.  Obviously a couple editors disagree, but that is too bad.  The consensus on these guidelines, and more importantly the policies, is longstanding and overwhelming.  A list is okay, a link farm is not. 2005 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No one has offered any rationale to make exceptions to the multiple guidelines and policies that these links violate.  No one has even addressed all the guidelines and policies that are violated. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. This has all been discussed many times before. See previous talk. Anybody can see this for themselves by reading the talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly no consensus to remove primary source links
Relatively recently User:Ronz removed all the primary source links that had been in this article for years.

Ronz keeps claiming consensus in his interpretation about the placement of primary source links in this list of wiki farms. He did not have consensus for this then, nor now. See the long previous discussion, and the 4 previous WP:Articles for deletion discussions listed at the top of this talk page.

Ikip returned the article to the longstanding (years) version with primary source links.

Ronz reverted him several times.

The primary source links need to be kept per WP:V, WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE, and WP:PRIMARY. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. They are not references.  They do not meet any relevant guidelines or policies. Their use actually violates all those you list and more.  This has been explained over and over.  --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes. See previous discussion. Many people disagree with your independent, personal interpretations of wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OBSERVATION FROM SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE DISCUSIION:
 * It would be helpful for User:Timeshifter to quote those parts of WP:V, WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE, and WP:PRIMARY that support inclusion or User:Ronz to quote those parts that support exclusion. No need to get into a "yes it does", "No it doesn't" argument, if the specific parts of guideline each are looking at can be discussed. If one side or the other is arguing "consensus", SHOW that consensus discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

All links are now in reference format
I think nearly all the links are now in reference format. See:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=270932815 --Timeshifter (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't find that to be an acceptable solution. It's not appropriate for them to be references, since we're not really referencing any of the text on the pages. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What consensus is there for you to remove longstanding references from an article? They reference the info in the table.


 * It is common to put a reference column in a table. See:
 * Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing --Timeshifter (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the reverts: sorry; I didn't realize you weren't finished. As to the gasoline link, you're misusing that as an example. On there, they give references to direct articles on those external sources to back up what information is being given - that gas is a certain price or whatever. All you're doing in those references is giving links to the site. It seems to be just a way of hiding the external sources from being directly inserted. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hiding external links in reference format is not an appropriate solution. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. There is nothing hidden. They are primary reference links for the info in the columns in the tables. It's not a plot. Really. These primary reference links have been in the article for years and have survived 4 article deletion attempts. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Plus, you deleted intermediate edits from people other than me. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blind reverts
While removing the reference column from the table User:HelloAnnyong removed intermediate edits from several editors (including myself) that had nothing to do with the reference column.

Please see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&diff=270928073&oldid=270927738

Please do not remove intermediate edits by others when removing or adding the reference column from the article. I would appreciate it if User:HelloAnnyong corrected the error and took the time to return the intermediate edits in question. I will assume good faith, but not if the mistake is not corrected. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than wait for HelloAnnyong to fix his mistake I went ahead and returned the article to its previous state. Otherwise even more intermediate edits will make this difficult. Please, HelloAnnyong and all, if you decide to remove or add the reference column again, please take the time, as I did, to do it right. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's be careful to only remove the linkspam, no matter how it's being hidden. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You really like that word "linkspam" don't you? Any link you disagree with is "linkspam." You rarely add info to articles. Your total output of edits is almost all deletionist. See your user contributions:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Ronz


 * There is plenty of real, not imagined, spam in articles. Why not go after the easy obvious stuff rather than waste time here after 4 attempts at deleting all or part of this article? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove Alexa references completely?
The reliability of the Alexa reference has been questioned. I'm undecided on the issue and wonder if anyone wants to argue that they're reliable. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please move on to other articles and topics. This has been discussed previously. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alexa is worthless in terms of "relaibility". there is no reason to have such links. 2005 (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Also, the individual Alexa references are there, along with the wikipedia article link (Alexa Internet). Readers can decide for themselves as to the reliability. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)