Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis/old proposal

Recently there has been a large number of specialised Wikis springing up covering everything from Battlestar Galactica to Nine Inch Nails. Some, but not all, are impressive, covering their subject in more detail than Wikipedia ever could or would even want to do.

Rationale
Given that a reader of a Wikipedia article is happy to read a wiki about the subject, it stands to reason that if they wanted more detail they may be happy with further wiki-based content. Furthermore from an editing point of view some articles can clog up with arguably trivial information which would be best moved to a specialised wiki.

This proposal aims to give a clear guideline on how Wikipedia editors should relate to other wikis, aiming for a mutually beneficial system.

Link to good wikis where possible.
When an article in a good wiki exists which covers the topic of the article in more detail it should be linked to in the external links section. If we're very confident, a box similar to the ones linking to Wikinews or Wikictionary could be used. This is not restricted to just the immediate topic of the wiki but other subjects within that umbrella as well (i.e. not just Battlestar Galactica but Cylon as well).

Wikis, of course, should not be used as sources, owing to reliability issues. Editors are however encouraged to look at specialist wikis to see what sources they have used.

There are two different ways that these links could be made:
 * 1) In external links.
 * 2) In a small infobox, in the same way that wikipedia's sister projects are linked to. See right for an idea, though one general customisable template would be preferable.

Definition of a "good wiki"
Some wikis are excellent, others not so, either yet to get of the ground, deviod of active editors, or merely copying or rephrasing Wikipedia for the majority of its content. Therefore, it is best to define what is a "good wiki"
 * The wiki must be in english
 * The wiki must be a serious encyclopaedia with a NPOV. Though its policies need not exactly match Wikipedia's, it should not contain material which would be objectionable on Wikipedia.
 * The wiki must be specific to a topic, not aiming to be a general wiki (i.e. forks of Wikipedia).
 * The wiki must have a large amount of content not currently available on Wikipedia. This is the most arbitary of these criteria, requiring either clarification now or test cases to be done
 * The wiki should be active, particularly if the subject matter is not stable. The wiki should be edited daily by several editors.
 * The articles should not be copies of Wikipedia material, but original creations.

Creation of a list of good wikis (in the Wikipedia namespace)
Wikis could be assessed on a case by case basis, however it may be more efficient if an assessment of wikis could be done in one central location.

Tiered Rating system
Wiki's could be rated as such:
 * Good - Excellent wikis that should be linked to wherever possible, possibly using infoboxes. For example Memory Alpha.
 * Candidate - Wiki's which do not yet cover their material sufficiently better than Wikipedia to merit linking, but meet the other criteria. These should be watched to see if they can be promoted to good status. For example WikiSimpsons.
 * Non-linked Wikis - Wikis which, for some reason, will never reach good status. For example Uncyclopedia, as it does not aim to be a serious encylopedia.

An intermediate step between good and candidate could be introduced.