Talk:Society Gardens
Wikia - creating communities
[edit] Longevity
what does "values longevity" mean in this context? --JWSchmidt 03:22, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- just intended to mean values not just popularity, which may be temporary, but also the characteristic of being, approaching or tending towards long lasting, durable, sustained Philralph 15:13, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- can this be rephrased, I find it a bit confusing myself. I would argue that the popularity of a wiki is related to how long lasting it will be.--Drawde83 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply re unprotecting Main page
Reply re of unprotecting Main page of Sustainable Community Action (copied from Help talk:Main Page )
Summary: Unprotecting at the present time seems inapproriate because of current and seemingly ongoing vandalism and the nature of vandalism in the past (apparent strong opposition to sustainability information even existing), but situation can be reconsidered in the future, for example when Main Page redesigned.
Although it may be Wikia advice not to unneccesarily protect a Main Page (on a specific wiki), maybe the people who can best judge this are those who use, or regularly use, the wiki in question. (Further notes on this below in response to Mindspillage). Philralph 13:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Of course the suggestion isn't that you have to open the Main Page up to any sort of garbage people want to put on it.
- The English-language Wikipedia's main page wasn't fully protected until roughly 1 year ago; it was constructed with a collection of templates that were themselves editable by anyone, and it wasn't until it started getting serious organized vandalism attempts that it was finally closed off. By that time there were hundreds of thousands of srticles and tens of thousands of active usere. The other English-language projects are by association so high-visibility that they too are attractive targets for vandalism. However, it was several years before this happened, and Wikipedia is by no means a frivolous project, either! Even still many of the smaller-language Wikipedias where they are not such attractive targets do not have their main pages protected, including the Nynorsk, Estonian, Irish Gaelic, and Scottish Gaelic Wikipedias, which are all more concerned about attracting new contributors than making sure the front page is never edited badly.
- You don't have to allow people to push the anti-sustainability points of view on the main page if there's a consensus that it shouldn't be there. How do you handle it when they do so on other pages in that Wikicity? There are plenty of other pages there (and it looked like a really nice resource, when I was looking through it). If someone vandalizes it, why not remove it, warn the users, and if it's necessary block the user or protect the page temporarily to stop an attack? But it seems like you have enough activity and enough good users there that someone who wants to make trouble will be stopped or reverted before too long, whichever page it is.
- The main page is the front door of your wiki, though, and as posted there, a new contributor who sees it and finds that it isn't editable may be put off and never come back; almost all of the Wikicities projects are still small enough that we'd rather not lose anyone when reverting bad edits would also solve the problem. Does this address your concerns? Thanks, Mindspillage 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- To address your second comment, I'll be happy to add that wiki to list of wikis I keep an eye on, which include a variety of others that are known to attract spam, vandalism, and other troublesome edits. Mindspillage 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think Phil is overrreacting here. However, it is the case that the SCA user community is very small. Probably only 3 people check the site and contribute anything like regularly. So it might be a bit more vulnerable than Mindspillage thinks. I'm happy to have the page locked and the talk open, as changes to the front page should probably be discussed first anyway. (By the way, i'm not entirely sure why this discussion is taking place here.) --Tim Gray 09:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Mindspillsge, Thanks for your reply, and especially offer of help to keep an eye on things. Also thanks for compliments on sca21.
- One of the main concerns here is that its not just the size of the wiki that'll influence whether or not its susceptable to vandalism, etc., but also the nature of the subject the wiki is about. So although Wikia may strongly argue, and continue to strongly argue, for not over protecting a wiki's Main Page, the actual decision at any particular time perhaps still rests best with those who actually use the wiki (in other words the 'local' consensus). Philralph 13:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Active wikia
I suggest the listing only include Wikia that have had at least one non-trivial edit in the last 30 days. (Just deleted one that didn't have any). Any that become active again can of course be put back on the list. Philralph 09:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively (so that we don't lose sight of them) transfer any currently inactive Society Gardens Wikia to the list below and put a note to that effect on a prominent page, e.g. forum or Community Portal talk, inviting new active contributors to move their entry here back into the main list.
To ease the "work" of checking up on them, make the "Recent changes" link the "30 days" link (as on my userpage). Robin Patterson 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inactive Wikia
moved to separate page: Society Gardens/Inactive wikia Philralph 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Added section
"success of this page". It's to see if this page hasn't become just a publicizing one. If it works, it will be an interesting feedback, and it will give some ideas of what has being made and could be made to help the wikia listed in it. --Let's 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Re the comment about this page being about what you can give as well as what you can get, I wondered about adding a page or sub-page to list people's Offers and Wants, but then thought if someone was inclined to offer some help they'd just go ahead and do it. What do you think? Would it be worth adding anything like this? I suppose its a bit like the 'mentoring' thing, though more 'status-free' and specifically for the more serious type stuff wikia (and of course people can just ask for specific help via the help desk as I've done recently) Philralph 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
(sorry for possible errors, I'm swiss) I thought, this section could be useful if the admins (or other people) of the wikia wrote which kind of help has been useful. This could give some more ideas for people who want to help, and could make them wanting to help, if they see that it is appreciated and gets a feedback. For example, as mine and the Meta collab wikia have related purposes, we're planning to help each other. If we get to do it, I would write it under the section, telling how we did it. This could be inspirational for other user. About your idea, I would propose to put a link for every "subscribed" wikia to a page in the wikias where they put some proposals about what one could do to help (a kind of interwiki link, not to the main but to a "what you can do" page). --Let's 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Let's, I'm not sure I understand your proposal here, but it sounds as if might be very similar to how WikiNodes (see Society Gardens#More specific examples) are supposed to work (although most so far perhaps not very well developed for collaboration). Good to see if we can develop this side of things though. Thanks for this. Philralph 09:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know WikiNodes, and I think I'll put one also in my wiki. I think I will be able to explain myself with an example: a section like this could be added in the Society gardens:
[edit] What you can do (example)
Here are the links to some lists of things to do in the wikias. Feel free to contribute.
- Sustainable Community - [sca21's list of to do-s] sca21:project:Collaborations
- Beyond voting - [BV's list of to do-s]
- Meta Collab - [MC's list of to do-s]
- and so on
They wouldn't be internal links, but would link to a page of the wikias.
Is it clearer now? I hope so. --Let's 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lonely wikia list?
Hi, I just found this Wikia. Would it be good to have a listing along the lines of the number of substantive contributors or something similar, to help those that are most lonely? For instance, my wikia shows 12 active contributitors, but I've essentiallly been working by myself for the past nine months. Or are we all in roughly the same boat? Maurreen 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Or maybe it would be simpler to list in order of the most recent edit not made by the founder (or main contributor). Maurreen 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "the more serious side of life"
Does that mean stuff related to entertainment/games are excluded? -Afker 15:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, see for example Society Gardens#More about this page - point being to rebalance slightly (in favour of more seious stuff) so that across Wikia as a whole entertainment/games e.g. on front page, don't appear to dominate completely Philralph 11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Literal interpretation and the contextual explaination of that paragraph seem to be at cross purposes. It leaves me unsure if anything other than entertainment and games are excluded. Say... are fiction, sports, poetry, and travel considered "serious" (being what ppl do for fun/hobby)? I see a few technology-related wikias in the listed, are they considered "do not have a large existing community of computer-savvy users"? *confused* -Afker 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the point is that it's possible to say that there's this desire to have something, a space like Society Gardens, where the more serious stuff doesn' t get drowned out. This is of course different from being able to say exactly what might be meant by "the more serious stuff". So's there's the possibility that this can be up to the community of users who find Society Gardens useful. So if there's a wikia that would find it useful to be included here, one approach is to put it in and see if anyone objects (or keep asking the questions until someone comes up with a better answer). Of course if the listing becomes such that people feel the more serious stuff is getting drowned out then the process would have to begin again. Philralph 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Of course another possibility for any wikia which feel excluded by this community of users is to set up a similar space for a different set of wikia. Philralph 09:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Um... hm... so... I think "More about this page" section should be re-written from scratch, or just get deleted altogether if no one has a good idea on how to revise it. The entire "having a computer-savvy userbase" seems completely irrelevant to the existence/membership of Society Gardens. Considering the majority of Gaming market is on the console, neither the Entertainment nor the Gaming userbase would have a heavier concentration of computer-savvy users compared to any random topic selected on average, percentage-wise. The section operates on flawed hypothesis and clames which ends up obscuring the identity of Society Gardens. -Afker 11:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New main page and ways to Society Gardens
With the new main page there no longer seems any obvious ways in which people get to see that Society Gardens type pages exist. Best idea I can think of so far is a link at the end of each suitable hub page. Any thoughts? Philralph 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Having just a few Society Gardens pages is beginning to feel a little restrictive to me, including (but not only) because I've this idea I'd like to develop - CAN cards (Community and networking cards). Early drafting of this idea / proposal here and here. (Because this seems to fall outside the scope of the central wikia, I'm wondering if a radical rethink of where all this stuff might be placed is needed (?). OK SG pages could be set up as a category, and it might be possible to do the CAn cards thing via w:c:social, but I'm wondering if with this and the earlier question it'd be worthwhile proposing Society Gardens as a wiki in itself? Philralph 17:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just one example - it'd then be easier to set up Society Gardens Forums, which might help, enable and encourage people editing 'the more serious wikia' collaborate more (?) Philralph 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not keen to see another Wikia just for that. (We've created all of two pages on the subject in how many years?) We can probably persuade our masters that we can have our own Forum here. There's no theoretical restriction on the number, and adding a fourth to the current three at Forum:Index shouldn't upset anyone. Robin Patterson 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think this sort of thing is well within the scope of Central Wikia, because it fosters interwiki cooperation among similarly-oriented people, thus adding to the total Wikia text and search rankings. Why not a Category:Society Gardens (as you were probably but ambiguously suggesting in that long paragraph)? And/or maybe we can have it as a "hub page"? Robin Patterson 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Extra publicity could be in the form of encouraging member sites to link to the hub or category, eg as a [[Help:Collaboration with friendly contributors to other Wikia]] page. Robin Patterson 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- All on the list should now be in category:Society Gardens and links set up from Politics and Activism, Health and Science and Nature hubs Philralph 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dates of founding
Moving sites up to older groups would be easier if all the founding dates were succinctly listed right at the start of each item; I suggest international standard date form, e.g. 2006-01-31. Robin Patterson 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Good work, PhilRalph! I've done the second block in support. Robin Patterson 02:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criteria for inclusion on this page?
I really like the idea of a page that "promotes and celebrates Wikia focused on the more serious side of life," and excludes "popular entertainment and gaming topics." Do we have a clear criteria? Otherwise it can get subjective. The "popular entertainment and gaming topics" would seem to be a good criteria.
The reason I ask is that I was surprised to see the ArmchairGM listed - "A sports site dedicated to creating the ultimate Sports encyclopedia, while continuing to produce News and Opinion Articles related to sports, with the ability to comment on all non-biographical pages." Looking further,
- 2006-09-04 Basilicus - "a massive free content worldbuilding studio for games, fiction, and media" and Special FX - "Makeup, propwork, animatronics, and all other special techniques used in film, theatre, and screen." Special FX is about entertainment but not necessarily popular entertainment.
There's WikiSocial "a free-content social network for people to socialize, experiment, and play" which is not entirely serious, but isn't about entertainment or gaming, and I would argue that it has quite serious aspects as well.
It's worth mentioning too, that if a wiki is not accepted for this page, it doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile wiki - it's just not within the page's scope.
Since I haven't been involved with this page, I thought I'd leave it to active people to make the (potentially controversial) removals. --Chriswaterguy 09:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposals for deletion
[edit] ArmchairGM
I don't know if Chris's comment above qualifies as a proposal for deletion, but either way I propose to delete ArmchairGM from the list. The link in the list doesn't work, and they seem to have become something a little different via openserving (so arguably have no need to be included here anyway) Suggested voting period - 2 weeks Philralph 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - "ArmchairGM is a community for passionate sports fans" Robin Patterson 01:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Basilicus
Also propose Basilicus for deletion from the list as is in gaming categories Philralph 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (though gaming is not its prime focus) - see http://basilicus.wikia.com/wiki/Basilicus:About but then see Main Page - "Do not contribute materials on existing worlds, locations, species or any conventions native to Earth: this is a completely fictional setting". Robin Patterson 01:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to move or archive some of the above
Because of the major redesign of this project's pages, some of the above may be better moved to more relevant subpages, and others archived (the page getting a bit long anyway) Philralph 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)