Talk:Wikiscope

Sorry, I don't like this idea; too disorganized & arbitrary.

68.148.165.213 07:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not to see the point as pages are already interlinked (you often see links to Commons, Wikispecies, Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource and Wikibooks in Wikipedia articles). Computerjoe 21:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Regards, --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Hitri odgovor) 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but often there are topics which, for some reason, are not (and should not be) on Wikipedia. Not only this, but Wikipedia should not be something which redirects people outwards. Wikiscope would allow people to be exposed to a large number of articles, definitions, pictures, sources, quotes and so on all branching out from one topic. Dbmag9 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia not direct people outwards? My primary use at the moment is in research and a starting point on the web. I have noticed a trend towards reducing useful outward bound links. If this continues I will probably go back to google as a starting point and Wikipedia will lose my minor contribution of correctional tweaks and occasional paragraphs that I know or found out something about. In my view this is taking the Encyclopedia simile too far. One of the reasons to abandon hardcopy encyclopedia for the online Wikipedia is the access to the growing body of up to date useful information online. lazyquasar

(Sorry for the delay in posting, I didn't notice your comment.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I therefore think that it is not its job to direct people to other Wikimedia projects. Yes, it should link to other projects if necessary, but the main task of that should be somewhere else. Wikiscope. Each page linked to from Wikiscope would have some kind of notice which would tell people to go to Wikiscope for more information. Perhaps there would be external links on Wikiscope as well. As a side note, I don't think that Wikipedia is decreasing its external links, I think they are merely checking far more thoroughly for bad or commercial websites (which perhaps amounts to the same thing. Daniel (‽) 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the other projects have links that link to Wikipedia; say, for example, some Wiktionary entries have links to Wikipedia and vice versa.

68.148.165.213 07:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea! Not sure exactly what it would involve technically, but the principle sounds good. Wikipedia shouldn't be the portal for off the other projects. Petros471 11:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Please consider adding your name to the Wikiscope section of Proposals for new projects. Dbmag9 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the other projects have links that link to Wikipedia; say, for example, some Wiktionary entries have links to Wikipedia and vice versa.

68.148.165.213 07:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This idea makes sense. It does seem more like a restructuring of Wikimedia than a new proposal per se. I'm not clear on what it would involve beyond extensive editing of the pages that already exist. --Ejmasicampo 05:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand. My proposal is to have one domain (en.wikiscope.org or suchlike) which will have pages with topic headings (such as Ancient Egypt) which will direct the viewer to various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, thank you for your comments and support! Please consider adding your name to the list of people interested at Proposals for new projects#Wikiscope. Daniel (‽) 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this idea. On the whole, I think the "battle ribbon" section of some Wikipedia articles that link to the sister projects can get out of hand in some situations. That is the current method for doing inter-project linking, but it is something that I often make fun of. It can get very much out of hand on user pages, but that is another fight for another discussion page. The positive aspect of this proposal is that it can provide a "common" source of links, perhaps even to other language versions of this content as well.

The largest problem that I see is that it isn't a "one stop" process but something that requires two or more mouse clicks to get the information. If MediaWiki could support inter-project templating (a very trickly proposition) and transclusion, this might have a little more merit. Think for example your Ancient Egypt Wikipedia article that has the inter-project links, and the list of links is on a transclusion toward the bottom of the article. The b:Wikijunior Ancient Civilizations/Egyptians article might be able to offer the same transclusion so an update on one area would be supported in both projects. There are other uses for inter-project transclusions, but this would be a good demonstration of the idea as well. --Roberth 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you support. I do agree that the length of time (in clicks) to get somewhere would be increased, which is never good. However, I think that the advantages would be great enough for this to be useful if done well. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people are already trying to turn Commons into this "one stop" link shop. See commons:Template talk:Sisterlinks. I found this out when I found out en.wikinews' "sisterlinks" all just link to Commons categories! The reasoning is apparently that Commons already has a quite good category structure. I was quite surprised to find this out. pfctdayelise 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about that. I have not yet looked at the ideas there fully, but I already think that the problem with this is that it will dilute Commons' original purpose - to provide a repository for open-source media files. The category system, if it is as good as they make out, could easily be copyied into Wikiscope. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how it can "dilute" the Commons, it doesn't stop or restrict people uploading in anyway. It is reasonably widepsread, I have seen a lot of them although I didn't realise this intention was behind them. I also don't think for example English Wikipedia has this practice.

FWIW I think this proposal (WikiScope) is an attempt to solve an identified problem that does need solving, but I don't think a whole new project is the best solution. I think it needs a technical fix first - bugzilla:167 or maybe bugzilla:4547. regards, pfctdayelise 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by 'diluting' is that adding this to the scope of Wikimedia Commons will make the relative amount of current Commons material less in comparison to the amount of sisterlink material, and this will inevitably reduce the overall amount of new Commons input. Commons will become more and more a repository for sisterlinks and less and less a repository for open-source media files. The creation of a whole project for these will mean that both Commons and Wikiscope remain focused. Daniel (‽) 17:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like an excellent experiment well worth trying. If it works well initially or starts to show some promise I will try to find some places in Wikiversity where a template or SOP on how to get started with groups studies or lesson plans include coming to wikiscope (I like name BTW) and verifying, editing or creating an appropriate page to support the participants research and study efforts. I had always envisioned this as approprate matching page to Wikipedia's article pages but perhaps this is a better solution that will make some of the purists attached to traditional encyclopedia appearance happy. Good luck! lazyquasar

Thank you very much! I'm glad you like the name (put comments regarding naming on Wikiscope/Name) and the project as a whole. I think that links to Wikiscope on Wikiversity would be great. If you want, please consider adding your name to the list of people interested in helping at Proposals for new projects#Wikiscope. Thank you! Daniel (‽) 16:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wikiscope pages themselves might look OK, but will require a lot of maintenance. Furthermore I think this will not have the expected interproject overview on the pages of those prjects. For example w:Nile will probably not link to the Wikiscope/Ancient Egypt page. I suppose it would be more accessible if the wikiscope project would be on Wikipedia Portals, for example as a box Other wikimedia projects on w:Portal:Egyptology. I am sure there will be many objections, but it would be much more accesible. HenkvD 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would need a lot of maintenance. However, I do not agree that a better solution is simply to use the Wikipedia portals. Ideally, the portals would be migrated to Wikiscope, and then extra information about the other projects would be integrated into them. Pages on a project would link to the appropriate Wikiscope page, and this might even (if we get developed support) be similar to the interwiki (language) linking at the moment. In any case I'm sure that it is quite easy to set up a bot which automatically links articles which are mentioned on Wikiscope. Daniel (‽) 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that, no matter what you do, WikiScope will not be the first port of call for people looking for information. The people this project is aimed at will still go to Wikipedia as their primary source. Or, more specificaly, if people want information about a particular subject they will look it up in Wikipedia. If they want a set of links related to a subject (as this project aims to provide) they will use Google. --HappyDog 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If all pages which are mentioned on Wikiscope link to Wikiscope (in a relatively obvious but non-intrusive manner) people will inevitably look at Wikiscope. They may start off going to Wikipedia, but they will, over time, start looking to Wikiscope instead. I dispute that Wikiscope pages would be mere lists of links. My example is rather sparse, but Wikiscope pages would be more like this in real life. They would function as a stepping point for people to go into various topics. Daniel (‽) 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The content of Wikiscope will need to be written. Until it is as comprehensive a resource as Wikipedia it will never take its (or Google's) place as the first port of call when looking for information. You will find it hard to persuade editors to work on what will (initially at least) be considered a partial fork of Wikipedia, particalarly when, from the point of view of a WP editor, the relevant information and links should already be present on WP. The Egypt portal you show above is a good example of a page that already has most of the functionality you are describing, or which could easily be edited to include it. --HappyDog 01:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Happydog. Addition of a few links to other projects to Portal:Egyptology would do just fine, I think. HenkvD 08:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Another idea would be to add external links as well, providing another route for people to take and expanding the project further. These external links would have to be regulated to avoid the obvious problems of people adding pages to it just to bump up their rank etc. Lcarsdata 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are also books called Ancient Egypt, I had one for my study but handed it in on Thursday and don't have the ISBN.
Anyway, books also should be mentioned. --Edwin10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• • Davidstrauss - I proposed something very similar as "Wikicite" at Wikimania 2006. My main argument is the ability to index source reliability and POV, something unavailable via Google, Amazon, and elsewhere. What would constitute a source would be entirely dependant on importance and use. It could be anything from an author to a magazine article. --Davidstrauss 07:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an interesting idea to me, and it could nicely integrate with sources in the Wikipedia. I am somewhat uncomfortable with its name, though. What about Wikicat, or something along those lines? Computerjoe 10:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"What about Wikicat, or something along those lines?"- my thoughts exactly ;) In any case, the Wikicat project has already been in development for a while now and implementation is well underway. I hope you will consider joining efforts. Jleybov 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.com already has a lot of this information in their files. I don't know if we would be able to duplicate it. I think this almost might be better as part of Wikisource, as books come into the public domain. Chadlupkes 06:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• T®eebark

I think this needs a more clear differentiation from Wikisource to justify being a separate project. Shouldn't we examine first what gap(s) this project would fill and whether any of them would be better integrated into the current wikisource instead. We want to preserve clear deliniations among wiki projects in order to keep it accessibly to as many users as possible, no? Disanpoter 17:30 2 Sept 06 (UTC)

Wikicite would not contain actual citable materials. It would characterize sources by their reliability, biases, age, and connections. It would provide a central coordination point for debating a source's reliability and ability to support verifiability. Currently, these discussions are spread out through talk pages, WP:RS, and WP:V. Such discussions get archived, forgotten, and repeated. Because Wikicite would be organized by source, relevent arguments and citations about a souce's reliability would persist. I envision the eventual result is linking to Wikicite from actual citation templates on the Wikipedias. This would also foster review of source reliability from Wikipedians new to articles. Currently, Wikipedians must dig deep to begin disputing a citaion.

Wikicite could help evaluate sources from all levels: individual paragraphs all the way to publishers and institutions. It would be very helpful to have a place to go instead of looking up a journal's peer review quality or whether an article has been refuted by a more credible source every time. --Davidstrauss 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this idea is great. Such a wiki would try to list all books (maybe even all standard media like magazines, dvds etc). It's different from Wikisource in the point that it would also list - not copy - copyrighted material. It would be a big catalogue. Some tags would be title, author(s), publisher, year and place of publication, ISBN, number of pages, language, crosslinks to translations, etc. - Anonymous

I agree with the problem

I do understand that I never use any other projects save Wikipedia, and I am quite a 'fan' of Wiki. I would fully back up something that did make the interface between the Projects, and I quite like the idea of having a search page / main page that would include all the Projects. If you need to contact me, please visit Wikipedia Usertalk Bhaveer

I also think that this is a great idea. I never thought about it, but the thing is, would anyone bother to help in this project? It seems a good idea, but difficult to implement and have the full library. I expect it would be less popular than Wikiversity. What about running a test first? 220.255.4.132 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidata would be a better place for this now

See Wikidata. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And Requests_for_comment/Interproject_links_interface. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)