Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services/Archive 5

Arguments for inclusion
I'm unable to find any sense in the arguments for inclusion. Somehow, these links are some special category of external link exempt from all relevant policies and guidelines, existing in the article to provide the main website of each wikifarm so that an editor can then hunt the website to verify unspecified information. For unstated reasons, we are supposed to make exemptions for all cited guidelines and policies to include these links. Makes no sense to me. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See the section higher up. It shows one way in which primary source links are used. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see any rational arguments for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for exclusion
WP:NOTLINK: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines."
 * The links were added simply to provide links to the websites. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The links are primary source references. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY:"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." "1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)" "6) A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight."
 * The article is a directory of wikifarms no matter how unimportant the individual wikifarms listed may be. If the article simply included only wikifarms that have their own articles, then the links are unnecessary because they are provided in each wikifarms own article. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a standard computer-related list with tables of features and options. Therefore it is not just a directory. Directories don't have columns for features and options. The links are the same primary source references whether in the list article or the articles for each wikifarm. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPAM
 * The article exists to promote otherwise unimportant wikifarms. The links are provided to promote these wikfarms' websites. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is not too long yet to need inclusion criteria. The links are primary source references. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:IINFO: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"
 * The choice of wikifarms is indiscriminate. If the article simply included only wikifarms that have their own articles, then the links are unnecessary because they are provided in each wikifarms own article. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See previous reply. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
 * The article exists as an original combination of unverified information, combined to advance the position of promoting non-notable or unimportant wikifarms. The links are provided to promote these wikfarms' websites. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic of the article is notable. The features and options are verifiable via the primary source links. As in any computer-related list article. As for inclusion criteria see previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
 * The links are sometimes said to be sources for information in the article. No one has identified exactly what information these links verify.  Additionally, the links are all to the websites for the wikifarms, suggesting that the claim is simply untrue that the links verify anything at all. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."
 * The article gives equal prominence to all wikifarms, regardless of how important they might be. If the article simply included only wikifarms that have their own articles, then no wikifarms would be given undue weight and the links would be unnecessary.  --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the undue weight would be limiting the wikifarms only to a few big commercial wiki farms with the clout to get mentions in print publications. See previous replies concerning inclusion criteria. The list is not too long yet to need inclusion criteria. Right now no wiki farm in the list is given more prominence than another. This is not an article with political overtones requiring careful balancing of viewpoints. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO#4: Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming."
 * The links are provided solely to promote the wikifarms' websites. The links are provided regardless of the information provided on that website. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The links are needed to verify both the existence of the wiki farms, and the features and options in the charts. Same as for any other computer-related list. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of notable wiki farms
All of this discussion seems to flow around one editor wanting to pile five or six exceptions to guidelines and policies on top of each other. While exceptions occasionally are allowed, multiple exceptions in the face of considerable opinion that exceptions should not be made render that argument path pretty moot. The reinvention of calling a link list "primary sources" is puzzling. That's not what sources are. These URLs are not sourcing anything. So that holds no water, though it has more of a leg to stand on than simply putting up a bunch of external links.

The root of all these thinsg though is the bad conception of the article. One editor again insists that non-notable items can be included, and thus since they are included they should be referenced by themselves. This flies in the face of how this encyclopedia does everything. Suppose this article was "Comparison of automobile manufacturers". This logic would want to include an item for the guy down the street who built his own car in the garage, and then "source" it with a link to his geocities page with pictures of the car, and have that sandwiched between Ford and GM items. The topic is notable, specifics that are not notable don't need to be mentioned. While the non-notable things "can" be mentioned, logically they should not. If they were not, there would be no issues with this list -- it would consist of notable wikifarms, with internal links to their pages. And this then would make an okay list article, structured the same way as the example of Comparison_of_raster_graphics_editors used above.

Quite simply, if the article didn't mention things that were not worth mentioning, it would have no problems. This is how most lists are handled, list the notable practioners, not the unnotable ones. So, I'd suggest all the non-notable entries be eliminated, and only included in the future if they become notable. Put another way, this article only is "works" to the degree it does now is because there are not that many non-notable wikifarms. Suppose there were 10 notable wikfarms, and 10,000 non-notable ones. The conception is flawed, fix that and the article instantly fixes itself. 2005 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Multiple people argued to keep this list in 4 AfD's. A few spam fighters can't seem to let it go. Why exactly are you here? If you don't like this list or its inclusion criteria, and are not interested in this topic, then please let those who are interested continue working. You haven't contributed anything to this article. So why are you here? It seems to be just a desire for more deletion. No, seriously, why are you here? You seem to follow Ronz around. When I bump into either of you, the other soon follows. See WP:Wikihounding and WP:TE. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said I'm interested in seeing articles follow guidelines and policies, and that they are not ignored for no logical reason. And, I'm not interested in silly drama.  2005 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's all Timeshifter appears to have on his side, silly drama. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Village pump, RFC, ARBCOM, etc
People have suggested doing an RFC (WP:Request for comments). Feel free. I will be presenting some ideas at Village pump (proposals) and elsewhere in the next few days.

Someone else suggested going to WP:ARBCOM. That may be necessary too. I am not going to initiate anything there in the near future. Others can feel free to do so, though. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, seriously? If it's going to make it as far up as ArbCom, then count me out. I really don't care enough about this page to drag it out as far as that. Do whatever you want to the article. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started with WP:WQA (WQA), in order to get help with the repeated incivility here. I'm afraid that ARBCOM may be the only solution to the continued behavioral problems.  I don't think we can make much headway when editors are using incivility to disrupt discussions and drive away editors.  --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * *shrug* I'm basically withdrawing from the conversation. I really don't care. I've had my share of discussions with editors in the past, but one that is as quick moving as this (nearly 30k of text in ~2 days) and so mired in Wiki policy is just too beyond me. I don't have the patience or the energy to keep the argument going. I'll keep an eye on this page, though, just to see how things are going. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to pursue further WP:DR. As far as I can tell, only one editor objects to the application of multiple policies and guidelines. Noted. That one editor has not convinced anyone that we should be making an exception for all these policies and guidelines. Noted. If anyone sees the situation differently, I think an Arbcom on this one editor's obstruction of consensus would be the next logical step.

In the meantime, I've removed the column, per the multiple policies and guidelines already mentioned. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I returned the reference column. There has been more than one editor returning the reference column. The reference column has been here for years. In January 2009 you removed the reference column. Ikip, MichaelQSchmidt, and I have returned it, and see no problem with keeping it. See previous discussion. Feel free to take this to Arbcom. You are the one being uncivil, not me. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing that matters are rational arguments for making exceptions to the multiple policies and guidelines with which we agree. No one has even provided the rational arguments yet, let alone ones that we agree upon.  It doesn't matter that the column was there for any period of time.  It doesn't matter if others have restored it.  Please read and follow WP:DR and WP:CON, rather than violating those as well. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretend sources vs actual references
Following up on the conversations, especially the recent comments in Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms I'm not against actual references. I am against urls that we pretend are sources. It's one thing to properly reference information where someone can actually identify what each link is being used to verify, and make sure that the link does indeed verify that information. But that's not the case here. Instead, some editors are trying to justify links that are nothing more than official web sites. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My previous replies, and the replies of others, already addressed this. Please stop spamming this talk page repetitiously with the same talk. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this has been addressed in any sensible, truthful manner whatsoever. If I missed something, please summarize it, rather than just saying that it may have been addressed somewhere, sometime. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protection requested
To stop the edit-warring, and force editors to follow WP:TALK, WP:CON, and WP:DR, I've requested the article be full protected. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff: . I agreed to the compromise offered by User:Themfromspace and User:HelloAnnyong in the section higher up titled:.


 * User:MichaelQSchmidt and User:Ikip previously stated that they had no problem with keeping the references in the chart. They have been in the chart for years. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What are these comments in relation to? Why are they relevant here? --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Are wiki farm website urls appropriate?
The links have been proposed to be included in many different formats, in order to avoid violating various policies or guidelines:
 * 1) Listed as references in the first (Wiki farm) column 16:17, 26 February 2009
 * 2) Listed as references in a column titled "Link to home page to verify features and options listed in charts." 25 February 2009
 * 3) Listed as references in a column titled "Refs" 15 February 2009
 * 4) Listed as a link in a column titled "URL" 14 February 2009

Basically, it's been argued that including the links violate WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SPAM, WP:IINFO, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:EL, depending upon how the links have been proposed to be included.

Editors who argue for the links have failed to summarize their rationale after multiple requests to do so from multiple editors. On editor has strongly suggested we ignore all rules. Another thinks it is common sense. The most substantive argument is that, "The links are needed to verify both the existence of the wiki farms, and the features and options in the charts." though no one is asserting that the links actually verify any information in the chart, only that the links can be used as a starting point to begin searching for webpages that actually verify the information.

See Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms for a more thorough summary. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What list inclusion criteria should this article use?
The underlying problem here is that editors are unable to agree upon a list inclusion criteria.

Strict, exclusive criteria: Some propose that the comparison table only include wiki farms that are themselves notable, having their own Wikipedia article. With this solution, there is no need to include the website links at all, other than in each wiki farm's own article.

Relaxed, inclusive criteria: Others argue that all wiki farms should be included. Otherwise the article "would be limiting the wikifarms only to a few big commercial wiki farms with the clout to get mentions in print publications." "Wikipedia is not here to only cover the largest wiki farms with the most advertising, and thus able to generate articles in appreciative print publications. Do you bow only to Microsoft?" --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strict - Thus, criteria-establishment and presence of URLs on the comparison page become complete non-issues. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strict. If a site is inherently notable enough to have its own article, then it should be included on the list. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strict I'd support a blue-link only list. Not that I'm against the other Wiki-farms, but we hardly know anything about many of them.  The opposite of bowing to Microsoft is WP:UNDUE, which I believe could be invoked here.  Remember, this page is a catalogue of a notable phenomenon, not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd also be willing to compromise somewhat on this issue, but we should at least get rid of the Wikifarms where we don't know much about, such as eurekster swicki, which doesn't have any info in the table except its name. Themfromspace (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relaxed:
 * I didn't see anywhere in the notability policy explicitly states every portion of the article must be notable. The article itself has to be notable, not the entry of the list or the content. A "blue-link only" requirement is wrong. Article itself and content clearly doesn't share the same notability requirement (or even the same thing).
 * I will show you some examples to illustrate my points. Let's say we are writing Jimbo article. We mention that Jimbo has a wife called Christine. Shouldn't I mention Christine at all because Christine is not notable. "Having its own article" and "mentioning it in a NOTABLE article" is CLEARLY not the same thing.
 * When we are writing Jimbo, we quote information from different sources. Surprisingly I realize some media company or publication don't have its own article in Wikipedia. Sometimes, perhaps, no one bother to write it even it is notable. Anyway that's not the main point. So should we remove all content which are referenced from those "no-blue-link" sources?
 * Jimbo has a friend called Rajkumar. We maintain a table of his filmography. Surprisingly there are so bloody many red links and no links, i.e. black-text entries. Are we going to clean it up by removing everything that doesn't have a blue-link?

Think globally, equally and fairly. We cannot stiffen our standards in one instance, and loosen in another instance. Otherwise we commit double standard.

If we apply the blue-link (notability) standard to every entry or information on the article, it's going to be disastrous. Originally a complete and comprehensive table, poor Rajkumar's will be reduced to some useless, short and incomplete craps if we apply that sort of policies. Many more tables or lists will have the same fate.

Are we really improving or enriching the article? I have to ask, what are the benefits of reducing a table or list to having a few entries only? Use common sense. Simply comparing before and after, people (except those who are lost in Wikipedia bureaucracy) hardly deem this is an improvement of an article.--VGG (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strict. List articles are not exempt from our standards for notability and verifiability. There are very clear guidelines at WP:SAL which specifically state that entries in standalone lists should either already have their articles or be reasonably expected to gain articles in the future. No such assurances are offered by the questionable entries in this discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which statement explicitly states every portion of the article must share the same level of standards as an article creation? This is not the exemption from notability and verifiability. Rather it doesn't share the same set of requirements. Otherwise you can't mention non notable person or media in any article, and you should visit this list of filmography now and clean up all those "SPAM" who doesn't have an article, or you commit double standard.--VGG (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote from WP:SAL: "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." I'm taking "reasonable to expect" there to mean "there is an obvious degree of notability to the subject such that a standalone article would not be deleted". The list of works you gave as an example fits that guideline; this article doesn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A filmography is easily verifiable by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Creating such a list is only slightly promotional of the entries.  Neither case applies here.--Ronz (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the filmography is easily verifiable but is not verifiable by multiple, independent, reliable sources, not to say every entry in the filmography can be notable enough to have its own article. Sometimes the only references are the official website or the online retailer shops. I encourage you to try it if you think otherwise. Other cases include list of published books, music, films or whatever. There are just so many. Very often they are included simply because it's related to the notable person or group or organization etc. Their publications don't share the same notability as the article owner. It could be much less. I seriously doubt every entry in those lists can have its own article in Wikipedia. --VGG (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I disagree.  Published films, books, music are all easily verifiable by multiple, independent, reliable sources.  Unpublished ones are rarely worth mentioning.
 * How any of this applies has yet to be explained. --Ronz (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relaxed: Use common sense. From the top of Stand-alone lists:
 * Without common sense and a rewrite of Stand-alone lists that is not dominated by a small minority of single-minded spam fighters, then Wikipedia's coverage of freeware, free web hosting, wiki hosting, open source, shareware, etc. will continue to be in constant turmoil with more partial and full deletions of many articles. Wikipedia should not bow mainly to big companies like Microsoft that manage to get coverage in print publications. Stand-alone lists conflicts with WP:Notability, and that conflict is the root of the problem. Common sense should not be trumped by bureaucracy in resolving the conflict. See:
 * Category:Freeware
 * Category:Free software
 * Portal:Free software
 * Portal:Free software/categories
 * Category:Open source licenses
 * Category:WikiProject Free Software
 * WikiProject Software/Free Software
 * Category:Technology-related lists
 * Category:Internet service providers
 * Category:Software comparisons
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What Ignore all rules really means
You guys mention ignore all rules. I would like to say people don't really get the spirit of it. It's a very good concept but it turns out to be a slogan only -- a rule you can say but can't apply. "Yes we can but in fact we can't" becomes the practical meaning of this rule. Even though Jimbo Wales says it is always the first rule to consider, Wikipedians just don't respect it. I seriously wonder anyone has used WP:IAR successfully to ignore some rule.

Why "Ignore all rules"? Barry Schwartz makes a passionate call for "practical wisdom" as an antidote to a society gone mad with bureaucracy. He argues powerfully that rules often fail us, incentives often backfire, and practical, everyday wisdom will help rebuild our world.

Ignore all rules is Wikipedia's [ first rule to consider]. It [ always has been] --Jimbo Wales

That's probably tell you why it's called "Ignore all rules", not "Ignore a rule". Even rules do have wide support, there may not be support for applying it in specific cases or the ever-changing world with new situations emerging every day.

This is the spirit of Ignore all rules: --VGG (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget all rules and policies learned or followed in the past.
 * Just think out of the box.
 * Only one thing in mind -- "Does it really help improving that wikipedia article?"


 * I've turned this into its own section so it doesn't appear to be part of the RFC. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it's part of or related to the RFC especially when someone wants to decide by WP:IAR. So you guys should discuss in two ways, first judge the case based on current rules and policies. Second, forget every rule and policy. Don't quote! Judge based on one goal (what can we do to improve this article).--VGG (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

@Wiki

 * It's said that @Wiki is a MediaWiki system, but why it looks so different to Wikipedia?
 * It seems that Wikia is blocked.
 * Is there a Unblocked (so not Wikia) Free WikiFarm that use MediaWiki system, Wikipedia interfaces, with "semi protection" and "full protection", Ad-Free (bestly) and I can select which protocol I use?

Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)