Template talk:Wikipedia

WikiProject Wikipedia      (Rated NA-Class)

This article is part of WikiProject Wikipedia, an attempt to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia. NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Related projects

I noticed this template when it was added to Conservapedia and noted that Conservapedia was listed under the "Related projects and forks" section. Forks I have no problem with including in this section of the template for obvious reasons, but "related projects" is nebulous to me. Who determines whether it's a related project? What does related mean? Does it signify an official connection between the two projects? Basically, I'm wondering what people think about this section and whether it should be removed entirely or trimmed down to just forks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "related" isn't the best word, but I think we should include in "related projects" any project that is at least one of these things (in addition to the obvious requirements for an article to exist in the first place):

• directly concerned with Wikipedia (i.e. Wikitruth)
• a freely-editable Internet encyclopedia, or a concept of one, which inspired Wikipedia in some way (e.g. Nupedia, Interpedia)
• a fork of Wikipedia (e.g. Enciclopedia Libre)
• a wiki-based Internet encyclopedia that is not a fork of Wikipedia but compares itself to, seeks to address a flaw in, or can otherwise be seen to be an attempt to re-invent Wikipedia (e.g. Wikinfo, Conservapedia)

Thoughts? – Qxz 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that a template like this is in general too self-referential and too likely to be full of incredibly minor links (Fuzzy Zoeller?). I'm thinking about WP:TFD but I'm not yet fully convinced to nominate it. Either way, I think your fourth criterion is way too nebulous, and needs to be scrapped, since it's going to grow to enormous proportions (SourceWatch should be in, as well as DKosopedia, off the top of my head. Pretty much every current wiki exists to do what Wikipedia does not). The second criterion may need to be refined; in what way did Interpedia actually inspire Wikipedia? They appear to have been two completely separate ideas. — coelacan — 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The self ref issue as creator of this wasn't a factor, it was the awkwardness of the history of wikipedia category that was--so I made this, to sort up the 'history of...' issues surrounding WP from birth to the future. I don't think it's actually all that self-referential as Wikipedia and the stories/articles surrounding it are notable--we need to move past the idea that articles on Wikipedia/related to it should come with some special caveats, stigma, or asterisks. They are notable or they aren't, but we shouldn't be treating an article on an aspect of Wikipedia any differently than we do one on a given type of Car or a given aspect of Microsoft, or France, or anything else. That said... I was really curious to look up the history of Wikipedia, and found the base category too hard to track in a somewhat sequential order. so, I made this template. Given how much endless press/attention wikipedia gets, and how much everyone everywhere seems to use it, the idea that people will want to know the history of the site is anything but far-fetched. hence, the need for the template. :) - Denny 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that was only half of my issue with this. It doesn't appear that WikiZnanie, Wikiweise, Conservapedia, or Interpedia belong here. And Fuzzy Zoeller and Joshua Gardner are too minor as well. — coelacan — 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I missed GNUpedia in the list of related projects. Certainly it is historically very related to wikipedia. For me it has much more relatedness than Conservapedia, for example. Further, as for forks, sure that WikiZnanie and Wikiweise belong here. Also Interpedia is related to wikipedias history. --Ben ^T/_C 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Notable related projects and forks" implies that Wikipedia and the listed projects are affiliated with one another. How about "Other wiki-based Internet encyclopedias" for those that are not affiliated with Wikipedia (as posted by Qxz)? As for the membership criteria, the template already indicates that it relates to the History of Wikipedia. I clarified the membership criteria on the template page. -- Jreferee 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't that be kind of general? We'd technically be able to link every notable Wiki encyclopedia... - Denny 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Do these Related projects and forks need to show up everywhere the Template:Wikipediahistory shows up if they are not really part of the History of Wikipedia? This seems more of a way advertise other options besides Wikipedia, which is not really what the History of Wikipedia template is about. Maybe we could create a separate template something like "competitior of Wikipedia." That way, the participants in each article could decide whether it was appropriate to include template links to competitiors of Wikipedia in that article. -- Jreferee 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm, since it's all in the spirit of the GFDL we're all built on/supporting anyway... and any editor on any article can contribute to this template, not just their own. :) every single editor on wikipedia is supposed to be 100% equal in voice. :) - Denny 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my disappearance, my Internet died on me yesterday afternoon and a project at work called today (well, it's still calling, but I need a break). I agree that "Other wiki-based Internet encyclopedias" is a better title for the section, but that takes things way outside of "Wikipedia history", which is what this template is aiming for, is it not. I say we take out everything but forks and influences that we can cite, such as GNUpedia. Conservapedia, and even Citizendium, have nothing to do with Wikipedia's history — both might in the future, I guess, but definitely not right now. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my intention up front. Stuff directly related to the history of wikipedia--people, places, things, and then notable (i.e. they have an account) events related to Wikipedia, to show where it began, went, and is heading. I intentionally didn't want to whitewash and leave out any negative stuff, to maintain NPOV/balance, and because... well, you only learn from your past... - Denny 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format?

Well, at least on my computer, the History of Wikipedia link overlaps with the MediaWiki link. I'd fix it, but I know fuck-all about how. --Dookama 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tjstrf. Or whatever string of letters you. <3 --Dookama 07:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Mcilwraith and Joshua Gardner

These entries (on this template) are a bit odd. Neither article has any relevance to the history of Wikipedia. They're just articles about subjects who happen to have manipulated Wikipedia as a component of larger scams.

We don't (presumably) list every killer who happens to have a MySpace/LiveJournal account in those infoboxen. Neither article sheds any light on Wikipedia, and neither has led to Wikipedia policy reviews or frothing "Is Wikipedia Fatally Flawed?" editorials like Seigenthaler and Essjay.

chocolateboy 06:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Navbox generic

• The formatting for this template should be changed to Template:Navbox generic, for ease of use. Smee 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Proposed rewrite

Many of the things mentioned here are fairly or totally insignificant to Wikipedia's history and are not even mentioned in the History of Wikipedia article. Taking out anything not mentioned there would leave just the following.

I also suggest removing Interpedia since it was a plan for a project that never existed and never had anything to do with Wikipedia. Is there any objection to this? More relevant links to have here would be UseModWiki, Florence Nibart-Devouard, and all of Wikipedia's sister projects. Angela. 04:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as Angela's name showed up on[1] this template she wants it removed. She removed her name from the above template.[2] :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. I've never edited the template. Try checking the actual page history. Angela

It is true. You have edited the proposed template above which I was referring to. You have removed your name and Citizendium from the above template. Do not try to misrepresent my statements. Try checking the template above. It does not look good what you are doing. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a very close look at the above proposed template. Angela's name is missing.[3] She intentially removed here name from the above proposed template. A serious COI. This kind of behaviour is frowned upon in the community and is considered poor taste. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a proposal on a talk page. It isn't the template itself. Angela. 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

She also wants the article on her deleted.[4] She has also removed the most notable fork of Wikipedia , Citizendium. Very interesting. Its not going to happen. Is this a COI? Hmmm. I recommend we close this section. This is a quick resource for readers to become familiar with the history of Wikipedia. If we listen to Angela, we would essentially dismantle this resource list. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If no one with a COI can edit this, we have a problem since the entire Wikipedia community are linked here, so I guess that means no one in the community can edit it... Or perhaps we could look at a more objective way of deciding what's in this template by seeing what is actually mentioned in an article about the history of Wikipedia. It's totally irrelevant for one ex board member to be linked here when none of the current members - not even the chair - is mentioned. Citizendium is irrelevant to the history of Wikipedia since it has had no impact on it whatsoever, as opposed to an actual fork like Encyclopedia Libre which did. Angela. 17:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This template is more than just about the history. Read it more carefully. There is a "Related projects and forks" section too. Nice to see you have singled out Citizendium. This confirms you have bias and a COI. If you continue, I may be forced to report your COI to the noticeboard. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't single out Citizendium. I removed everything that was not mentioned in the history of Wikipedia article. Angela. 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Angela singled out which article she really wants removed from the template, "Citizendium,"[5] which is part of the "Related projects and forks" section. Angela is quick to talk about the removal of Citizendium - a rival to Wikipedia![6] Oh. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? How have I singled out Citizendium? I removed 7 of the 8 supposedly "related projects". You're the only person singling out Citizendium. Angela. 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You just singled/pointed it out again. Wow. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

While it is clear that Angela has not to date had some pattern of POV edits on the template (to my knowledge anyway), I am in strongly opposed to the deletions she is proposing and especially to removing her name from the template (I placed it there FYI). However, she should be commended for proposing any controversial changes first rather then just making them. But she absolutely fits the bill for inclusion in this history template, and as a public figure that is the subject of a bio article and a key party in the history of Wikimedia projects it is laughable to think she has the right to keep a low profile by removing herself from the template. The other names of the Foundation board members are not linked bc their articles are redirects to the Wikimedia Foundation article. While they may even be hostile to Wikipedia and its sister projects, Wikitruth and Conservapedia (as well as the others) are by their very definition forks of Wikipedia. Without Wikipedia, they simply would not exist. Removing those projects hostile/unflattering to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects is providing more fodder for the criticisms of the projects that these morons are pushing. As to the "impact on Wikipedia" argument, the links included in the template are not there bc they have had a significant impact on Wikipedia. They are there bc they are directly related to the history of Wikpedia, that's why the title of the template is "History of Wikipedia" and not "Wikipedia Influences" VanTucky 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad Angela did not edit the live version of the template. Anyhow, the comments she made to remove the fundamentals, related, and/or the history of Wikipedia articles is very questionable in nature. Have fun. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I do support Angela's suggestion to add Florence Devouard and Wikipedia sister projects. Oh, and as of now, Angela is mentioned in the History of Wikipedia timeline. VanTucky 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As it has been a while and no one has commented on these particular points, I'll go ahead and add the above links. If anyone does object and hasn't said so yet, feel free to revert the changes (of course) w/o starting an edit war, and we'll discuss them. Cheers VanTucky 21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bomis?

It strikes me as confusing and useless to the leader to have the entire template begin with what is, at most, a tiny footnote in the history of Wikipedia, Bomis. I would say that based on editorial questions regarding leading the reader through the history of Wikipedia in a helpful way, this should be removed, or at the very least not the first link in the template.--Jimbo Wales 08:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bomis is part of the history of Wikipedia. Without Bomis, we may not be having this conversation now. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Could it be simply bc it's alphabetized? it should be, within the sections. That way there is no dispute. Also, everyone seems to be forgetting that the order of inclusion for links (or other equally nit-picky things) in no way is meant to be indicative of importance. You're reading too much into it. It's just a template to build the web. Besides, once again here, removing a link to an article whose subject is an important point of criticism (however inane) by those hostile to Wikipedia looks like censorship, especially when proposed by someone formerly involved with Bomis. VanTucky 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quake AID?

Since the content in the Quake AID article is original reserach which is not supported by any reliable sources, that article probably needs a complete rewrite. Having this very minor footnote in the template for Wikipedia history is "undue weight" by any standards. A very tiny website had a fight with Wikipedia, well it may be important to them, but to the history of Wikipedia? The controversy was, to my knowledge, never covered by any media of any kind, mostly because the whole thing was complete nonsense.--Jimbo Wales 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though catching Quake AID at its game may look good for Wikipedia, it's not really related to the evolution of Wikipedia. VanTucky 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiZnanie

How is it a related project or fork?--Imaginationac (Talk | Edits | Email) 06:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] style

http://en.wikipedia.orgindex.php?title=Template:Wikipediahistory&diff=prev&oldid=152954876 Navbox style

http://en.wikipedia.orgindex.php?title=Template:Wikipediahistory&diff=next&oldid=152954876 Navbox generic style

Here are two different styles above. Which is the preferred style for this history template. Please discuss. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia community

This article currently (since July) redirects to English Wikipedia, which isn't helpful. Shouldn't it be removed from the template? Rigadoun (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related projects and forks

Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia? Certainly not forks. They're both sort of "anti-wikipedias" (one has a blatant POV and the other's explicitly a parody) - I'm not sure I'd call these "related projects". Any objections to deleting them? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly object. A fork does not entail a positive outlook on Wikipedia. Conservapedia forked from Wikipedia for the express purpose of creating a conservative encyclopedia, but otherwise based on our model. Uncyclopedia is a fork, because it's a parody of Wikipedia. They're both forks just like Citizendium is a fork. VanTucky ^Talk 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is not about "positive outlook on Wikipedia" but any substantive relationship. Neither of these are actually forks in the sense that they started with Wikipedia's content and continued. They use the same software, but it's open source software, so quite literally anyone can use it. I don't think the intent of this list is to include all projects that use this software, or even all "encyclopedia" projects that use this software (there are lots of them), but rather projects that are in some way related to Wikipedia. Most of the rest are Wikimedia projects (clearly related). Citizendium was started by Larry Sanger who was one of the folks originally involved in starting Wikipedia. Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia have no relationship to Wikipedia at all, as far as I'm aware. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, how is a direct wiki parody of Wikipedia (expressly stated to be so) and a wiki encyclopedia based on our format but created directly and definitively in opposition to this one not related? Conservapedia's founder always describes the creation and execution of that site in terms of how it isn't Wikipedia. Without Wikipedia, these projects would never have been created. These sites are important stepping stones in the history of Wikipedia, their creation had a tangible impact on the project, as evidence by the loads of media coverage. VanTucky ^Talk 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in other opinions about this, but I'm not buying your reasoning. A direct wiki parody (expressly stated to be so) is no more relevant to Wikipedia's history than Saturday Night Live's skits are to the history of the Presidency of George W. Bush. Wikipedia is certainly relevant to the history of both Uncyclopedia and Conservapedia, but I don't think relevance is symmetric. Mentioning either of these in a template appearing on every Wikipedia related page strikes me as an extreme example of undue weight. I suspect we're not going to agree on this. I'm willing to wait for some others to offer their opinions. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read some of the previous discussion on this, you'll see that it's pretty split usually. But so far people seem to have bowed in favor of my point of view. You're welcome to file an RFC if you like. VanTucky ^Talk 03:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

There appear to be two issues here: 1)Should there be a Related projects and forks section on the template; and 2)If yes, what should it contain. As regards the first question, that has been discussed above. There are mentions in the History article of related projects and forks, so it would seem appropriate to have such a section on the template. The second question then looks at the content of the section. I hear the argument that content in the section should also be present in the main article. If the content is not notable enough to be mentioned in the main article then it would be inappropriate to simply append it to the section on the template as though the template were a trivia list. A rigorous approach needs to be taken otherwise the template will contain too much trivia and cease to be useful. Neither Uncyclopedia nor Conservapedia are mentioned in the article. Should they be? Uncyclopedia is a spoof which may be mentioned in passing as a sign of Wikipedia's success - however that is already adequately covered in the article by reference to more serious material. I see no valid reason for Uncyclopedia to be mentioned in the article, let alone in the more selective template. Conservapedia, however, could be mentioned in the main article as an example of editorial difference, the same way that Citizendium is mentioned. However, it is not vital, and the Citizendium reference is perhaps enough. An editor may decide to make reference to it in the article, and at that time consideration may be given to including it on the template, but currently, with no mention in the History article it seems inappropriate to list Conservapedia on the template. Neither article is included in the main or subcats of Category:Wikipedia. It is difficult to see any solid justification for inclusion of these two articles on the History of Wikipedia template, and this may be an example of creeping listism. I would also suggest a good scrutiny of the other articles listed on the template to ensure that all of them are mentioned in the article, and are pertinent to the history of Wikipedia, rather than merely sharing a name, software or other tangential non-pertinent relationship to Wikipedia in general. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Wikia and WikiWikiWeb as "related projects"

I've removed these two projects because they are barely mentioned in History of Wikipedia, and because:

• For Wikia, I think it's important to be sensitive to criticism that Wikipedia somehow "favors" Wikia or supports it or otherwise is influenced by it. Wikia is clearly not a fork of Wikipedia, and it clearly is not related in the sense of covering the same topics, any more than any of the other of thousands of wikis out there are "related" to Wikipedia.
• For WikiWikiWeb, this was clearly an inspiration for Wikipedia, but I think it's appropriate to simply mention it (as is the case now) in the History of Wikipedia article, not to more prominently feature it on the template. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Wikia is very related to Wikipedia. It's fundamentally a for-profit branch of the WMF in all but name, so... no, it doesn't cover the same topics, but it's still related. Dookama (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikispecies?

Where is it? - rst20xx (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Events

As this navbox appears on several pages, I think the "events" section should be entirely removed. And anything not already located at History of Wikipedia be merged there. - jc37 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming to "Template:Wikipedia"

The contents of this template are already FAR away from what history is, so lets rename it to "Wikipedia" and make a general Wikipedia-realted topics template from it.--Kozuch (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge - Template:Wikimedia Foundation

The pages should be either merged, or the Wikimedia project row should be deleted from this template.--Kozuch (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The latter done.--Kozuch (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Watchdogs"/Critics Section

Who, besides the groups themselves, describes them as watchdogs? What consumer protection do they actually offer? They could be more aptly described as discussion forums. And as for critics, there are a lot of people/groups who would fit that bill. KnightLago (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit did not match the edit summary. The edit summary gave the misleading impression that too many critics were added. QuackGuru 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia has been criticised by many people, but what makes these three special? Some would argue that because many Wikipedians edit the three sites and probably the reason why only these three were added, which doesn't really constitute a neutral point of view. If we were to include all critics of WP, the template would need its own page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected The Wrong Version (note that "semi") of this. (I have no strong opinion on which version should be kept). If you want to argue about it, feel free to comment here. – iridescent 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• They're "special" because they're notable, we have articles on them and they fit within the general topic of Wikipedia. We're here to inform and templates like this are meant to provide navigations within topics, which includes linking notable criticism. naerii 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• InformationWeek described Wikipedia Review, along with Wikitruth, as being a "watchdog" site, "dedicated to scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws".¹ naerii 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have a great idea. Maybe we should start a new template called Critics of Wikipedia. For now, a few notable critics is par for the course. If the list gets too long we can always start a new template. Or we can stick to the notable critics for this template. QuackGuru 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What do editors think of adding Encyclopedia Dramatica. QuackGuru 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think criticizing / watchdogging Wikipedia is the major purpose of that site. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't fit within, nor are they a part of Wikipedia, they only talk about it. Thus, they don't belong in the main Wikipedia template. If you want to create a template called Critics of Wikipedia go ahead. We also already have Criticism of Wikipedia linked, so why do we need to recognize these 3 websites when there are dozens and dozens already? These should just be added to the see also section of the main article. KnightLago (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you name 3 of the 'dozens and dozens' of sites that are devoted to criticising Wikipedia for me please? naerii 10:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And how many of these have articles... Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice that wiktionary:watchdog defines a watchdog as "a person or organization that monitors and publicizes the behavior of others (individuals, corporations, governments) to discover undesirable activity." I would say that those three sites fit perfectly the definition of watchdog, changing the name to wiktionary:critic is just silly, since the most accurate definition that would fit those sites is "One who criticizes; a person who finds fault". The definion of "watchdog" fits those sites waaaay better, accurately and descriptively.

Also, you can find some sources for use of "watchdog", (altought seeing how the spam filters bitches about freerepublic.com and israelnewsagency.com I suspect that some wikipedians will complain about the quality of these sources :) ) so this is not totally original research, like Computer world[7] and free republic [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1808275/posts] for wikipedia-watch, Isreal News Agency for Wikipedia Review [http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediaisraelnewsleydenwarcensorship480722.html]. Also, wikipedia review calls itself a watchdog site on its own page, and Brandt is described as a watchdog on a blog by Times journalists [8] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia#External links gives a broad overview of sites that have been critical, but that is besides the point. The real issue here, as said above, is that these 3 sites don't fit within, nor are they a part of Wikipedia. Thus, they don't belong in the main Wikipedia template. I think they should have their own paragraph or see also in Criticism of Wikipedia, but to go further down line from that article to then identifying individual critics or even watchdogs (per Enric) in the main Wikipedia template goes too far. KnightLago (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, it's funny how when someone proves one point wrong you move onto another (equally wrong) point. Let's clarify:

• WRT your first point; yes, they are 'watchdogs' as per the sources provided by myself and Enric above;
• As for the "dozens of other sites", the external links you mention are sites that happen to be critical of Wikipedia occasionally as part of their other reporting activites. There is a different between "sites that have been critical" and "sites that are devoted to discussion, criticism and monitoring of Wikipedia";
• Why are they special? They are notable;
• What does "fit within Wikipedia" actually mean? If you mean "fit within the topic of Wikipedia" then yes they do fit in, as these sites are relevant, have occasionally played roles in pivotal points in Wikipedia's history (for instance, the Essjay thing first broke on WR);
• If you still don't believe they are relevant to the topic of Wikipedia, read (as one example) Wikipedia_Review#Involvements:

• And so on. The sources don't appear to be on your side. naerii 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"nor are they a part of Wikipedia" -- neither are "Related projects and forks". Are you going to remove those as well under the same rationale? rootology (T) 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the template supposed to actually be good for finding articles worth seeing? Encyclopedia Dramatica has some actual relevant criticism if you can be bothered to dig through the crap. Conservopedia, too, probably has more relevant criticism than any of your blog-sourced 'watchdogs'. Should we add the Register, too? At least the crap articles on Wikipedia there are deliberately written badly, unlike WR. John Nevard (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where to start:

• Under the definition of watchdog any published work offering analysis and commentary fits. So everyone in Criticism of Wikipedia#External links falls into this category. But again, besides the point.
• As for being critical of Wikipedia occasionally and all the time... I don't think the distinction really exists. The majority of links are from organizations who are professional critics that act as watchdogs all the time. The New York Times and Cade Metz don't publish articles or maintain a forum everyday, but the fact remains that they, like WR, cover and monitor Wikipedia. WR has the distinction of being a forum. If you want to change the field to forum and then add WR I would be fine with that as that would make them unique from everyone else.
• Many subjects of articles are notable. They are not listed in the template. See immediately above and below.
• How are they relevant enough to rise to the level of the main Wikipedia template? They write or post in forums about it? As mentioned, other organizations such as the journal Nature, and those who covered the blocking of Qatar (just to name a few), hell the whole Events section is about controversies covered by major news sources to which Wikipedia reacted. We don't list everyone in the template, we keep them in their respective articles. The same with the Essjay thing. We have Essjay's idiocy linked already in the template. Their role can again be discussed there.
• There are many sources, as discussed above, that have arguably played more important roles in the history of Wikipedia and are not included. So I don't quite think the sources are on your side.
• Looking at the Related projects and forks, some of those should definitely be removed.

Is everyone here a WR regular? KnightLago (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• You might as well ask "Is everyone here a WP regular?". It would have the same relevance. Have any of those sites in the external links been described by third-party reliable sources as 'wikipedia watchdogs', like WR, Wikitruth, and Wikipedia Watch have? naerii 21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure I could find sources for major news organizations being called watchdogs. Again, I don't see the distinction here. Do you have more than one single post from a blog calling all three of them watchdogs? Again, there is no need to have these 3 in their own sections when there are main articles already in the template. Lets try to come to some consensus here. How about moving WR to the related projects (could be renamed) and trimming the section. And then removing the critics/watchdogs section. I am trying to work towards some compromise here. KnightLago (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I've full protected the template indef, probably at the Wrong Version, but this edit warring over a template used in the article space is unseemly to the project. Reach a consensus here in the collaborative talk space, and then flag another uninvolved admint o make an {{edit protected}} request or unprotect the page. Edit warring is unacceptable. MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I clicked the little "e" button from an article and didn't see the template was protected. I added "MyWikiBiz" to the list of related projects and forks, reasoning that if Veropedia and WikiZnanie are worth inclusion, so is MyWikiBiz. This seems to be unrelated to the edit-war, so I haven't self-reverted but will self-revert if anyone asks me to do so (or should any admin wish, please feel free to revert me). Neıl ☄ 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz has asked me to revert myself and take it to the talk page, so I have done so. Is there any objections to adding MyWikiBiz to the related projects? This does not appear to be related to the part of the template the edit war is about. Neıl ☄ 08:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Particularly as since the protection, there five days have elapsed and there has been no discussion whatsoever vis a vis resolving the dispute. Neıl ☄ 08:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was one of the people arguing above, and I ceased discussing it as don't care enough to debate the inclusion of Wikipedia Review, et al, ad infinitum. I have no problems with you adding MyWikiBiz. naerii 08:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the page was protected for one day earlier. Nobody discussed anything during this time and when it was unprotected identical edits were made. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects in a few hours, I will re-add the article - thanks. In the meantime, regarding a compromise for your above issue, how about simply adding Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth to "Related projects and forks", also? Let the reader determine whether they are "watchdogs" or "critics" or whatever. Neıl ☄ 09:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. There are a lot of Wiki's, they are all kind of related to WP, are we going to add all of them? Why is the one you want to add unique? I am ok with the 3 in the related section. KnightLago (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say MyWikiBiz, Wikipedia Review, and Wikitruth are sites worthy of inclusion because they exist solely because of Wikipedia. There are a lot of wikis, yes, but merely "being a wiki" wouldn't be sufficient, I'd say. ED is more borderline. Neıl ☄ 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about we add the 3 we have been discussing plus MyWikiBiz to the related. I don't think ED fits in the template. We would then need to pair down the list. The following are the articles currently in the related section.

• Bomis
• Nupedia
• Citizendium
• Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español
• Interpedia
• Veropedia
• Wikia
• Wikiweise
• WikiZnanie
• WikiPilipinas

Just after a brief glance I think we should keep Citizendium, Interpedia, and Wikia. Bomis and Nupedia should already be covered in the history of Wikipedia. The others seem to be forks. Thoughts? KnightLago (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would we need to reduce the list? Forks are worthy of inclusion. The ones you give above plus Wikipedia Review, MyWikiBiz, and Wikitruth should do it. Neıl ☄ 10:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. KnightLago (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, seeing as we have consensus, and it is broad, someone wanna give me an edit to make? MBisanz ^talk 14:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement to add Wikipedia Review, MyWikiBiz, and Wikitruth to the related field. But let's wait until Neil returns so we can make sure we are on the same page. KnightLago (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll hold off, looks like a simple enough edit MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. For proprietry's sake, MB, I'll leave the edit for you to make. Neıl ☄ 08:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. MBisanz ^talk 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wikitruth" and "wikipedia review" are hardly "projects". This description does not seem at all accurate. Citenzium etc are, but these are discussion boards. Projects have aims and objectives, discussion boards do not. I suggest these be removed from a "project" list, it is misleading.--Troikoalogo (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say project is a fairly broad term, and Wikipedia Review does have a defined mission statement/objective; see the article. As does Wikitruth. Neıl ☄ 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Neil. KnightLago (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story

{{editprotected}} Please remove the Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story link from the template at this time. The article has been deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The speedy deletion was declined, so it is still an article, please come back after it has been deleted. MBisanz ^talk 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] whitespace after protection template

{{editprotected}}

Causing a blank line when transcluded. Delete the carriage return between the noinclude and the start of the template on the first line, please. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Stifle (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change request due to protection

{{editprotected}} Please add Deletionpedia to "Related projects and forks". --Explodicle (T/C) 13:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the nature of the edit war that generated this protection, I'd want to see more discussion before doing this edit. I don't have a major objection, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the link should be added because Deletionpedia directly addresses one of the most controversial topics on Wikipedia - Inclusionism vs. Deletionism (for which there is already a link). There have been heated debates here and on Slashdot now, and the article itself has been mentioned in a few news sources. I think it's significant enough to add, but agree that this is a matter of opinion... If anyone else has any input on the matter, I'd like to see it. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  Y Done fish&karate 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academic studies about Wikipedia

{{editprotected}} Could someone (by this I mean admin) add this to the template? -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done fish&karate 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Watch

As we agreed to add Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review, etc, I would suggest adding Wikipedia Watch for completeness - any objections? fish&karate 14:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined not to. Aside from a single Certain Page, the site is rarely if ever updated any more, and in any event is a tiny site (9 pages) consisting of one man's opinions, rather than a true "criticism site". I'd question the value of even keeping our article on it, to be honest. – iridescent 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)