Encyclopedia content[edit source]
I only just realised that {{Encyclopedic content}} and {{Wikipedia}}, ...were created by different people. So perhaps we still need to discuss how we deal with encyclopedia content. I like the idea of having something like {{Wikipedia}} on topic articles, with its message of "Look up X in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." ...but we could perhaps change the wording to say Wikipedia has information on X. (I considered For encyclopedic information, see Wikipedia's article on X. - however, I suspect many people will misunderstand what is meant by "Encyclopedic" as that word can have a broader meaning.) --Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) talk 08:11, 10 August 2006 (PDT)
- I have the feeling that we (by which I mean Chris :-) could propose some straightfoward and perfectly acceptable policy and close this... But I want to ask a clarifying question. When we say "see Wikipedia's article on X.", would that be a hyperlink to the article? I would assume yes, but perhaps there is a reason why not?
- Okay, well, here's my proposal.
Appropedia's policy on encyclopedic content of significant size (over one or two sentences) is that it should be included by reference. That is, when there is relevant encyclopedic (i.e. Wikipedia) content available, that content should be referenced with a link. For example, (give example).
- What if the content could be regarded as "encyclopedic" but is not on Wikipedia? I would suggest that it be included here for simplicity. There will always be some judgment about such things and will need to be resolved by concensus. In addition, some content will begin as non-encyclopedic and mature over time into encyclopedic info. So there needs to be a (slowish) process for migrating content from Appropedia to Wikipedia. Worry the details of that later.
- I think the policy on this would be something like:
- We encourage encyclopedic information to be placed at Wikipedia. If someone places it here, that's cool, but it should be moved to Wikipedia. If material is placed here and later becomes encyclopedic (because good references have been added, and/or it's been written), then that is very cool - this should also be moved to Wikipedia.
- I think the policy on this would be something like:
- Note that it is always acceptable to use a brief explanations on Appropedia where this makes it easier for the reader.
- Needs polishing, but does it sound reasonable? Perhaps we should slip the word "transwikiing in there somewhere. --Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) · talk 08:46, 10 October 2006 (PDT)
- When we settle on a policy, what are the actions? Just change the template and Appropedia:Ruleset? --Curtbeckmann 22:40, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
- I think that the {{Encyclopedic content}} may be close to unnecessary. I feel that a policy is emerging of topic-area categories having {{wikipedia}} placed on them, then containing value-added information. Wikipedia is for brief description based encylcopedic entries, and as I think Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) would tell you, we should contribute to wikipedia for this type of entry. Here at Appropedia, we can go much more indepth and include futher pages on lecture notes, projects, research, theses, organization, people, etc. It is probable that some wikipedia-like content will end up here, but only when it leads into more. In addition, it is possible that some things like lecture notes would be better placed at wikiversity and linked from here. I look forward to what Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) has to say, as this is his arena, see The Wiki Synergy Project. --Lonny 23:48, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
- This sounds like we're in agreement about the practice, which is excellent. I think it doesn't hurt to have the policy spelt out (briefly) as suggested by Curt. This would be helpful for new people trying to figure out how things fit together. --Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) · talk 08:46, 10 October 2006 (PDT)
- I think that the {{Encyclopedic content}} may be close to unnecessary. I feel that a policy is emerging of topic-area categories having {{wikipedia}} placed on them, then containing value-added information. Wikipedia is for brief description based encylcopedic entries, and as I think Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) would tell you, we should contribute to wikipedia for this type of entry. Here at Appropedia, we can go much more indepth and include futher pages on lecture notes, projects, research, theses, organization, people, etc. It is probable that some wikipedia-like content will end up here, but only when it leads into more. In addition, it is possible that some things like lecture notes would be better placed at wikiversity and linked from here. I look forward to what Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) has to say, as this is his arena, see The Wiki Synergy Project. --Lonny 23:48, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
- Curt: When we settle on a policy, I think it is just a matter of changing the relevant policy page, and doing whatever changes to templates etc are appropriate. As long as we reach consensus first, it's no problem. (I think we're pretty close to consensus here, but I'd like to get Lonny's feedback, esp on whether he's okay with expressing this stuff explicitly in policy.) --Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) · talk 08:54, 10 October 2006 (PDT)
- I am ready for this to be expressed explicitly in a policy, but I am a little wary of it being posted in the Appropedia:Ruleset. My reasons for trepidation could be easily mitigated. My worry is that editors will remove contributions because they are too "encyclopedic". I would like to greatly encourage contributors to post brief encyclopedic wikipedia-type content to wikipedia, and more in-depth studies, explorations, models, formulae, etc. here. But at the same time I do not want to encourage any quick deletion of content because it is too "encyclopedic". Instead of having a atmosphere of strict adherence, I would rather foster a more open attitude, instead of, "that content does not belong here", I would rather, "let's find a place for that content, or a way to develop it further." I think that this can be stated along side a statement discouraging any braindrain or duplication from wikipedia. Sorry this is not succinct, does it make sense? --Lonny 23:30, 10 October 2006 (PDT)
- Makes perfect sense. We just need to word it clearly, to say that we never just delete material etc. Perhaps the ruleset could refer to transwikiing (not using the word delete), and Appropedia:Transwikiing could explain what that means. --Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) · talk 21:28, 11 October 2006 (PDT)
- If I understand right, we pretty much have the wording we want. It belongs in "Policy" instead of "Ruleset" because we don't want to be too legalistic. I'm going to remove the "encyclopedic" template from the 2 places it's used, and place the wording that Chris created onto the policy page (project page for this talk page). If everyone is in agreement, this discussion topic can probably be archived. Maybe Chris can help archive, or I'll have to grok the archive template/policy/process :-) --CurtB 17:51, 22 October 2006 (PDT)
- I am ready for this to be expressed explicitly in a policy, but I am a little wary of it being posted in the Appropedia:Ruleset. My reasons for trepidation could be easily mitigated. My worry is that editors will remove contributions because they are too "encyclopedic". I would like to greatly encourage contributors to post brief encyclopedic wikipedia-type content to wikipedia, and more in-depth studies, explorations, models, formulae, etc. here. But at the same time I do not want to encourage any quick deletion of content because it is too "encyclopedic". Instead of having a atmosphere of strict adherence, I would rather foster a more open attitude, instead of, "that content does not belong here", I would rather, "let's find a place for that content, or a way to develop it further." I think that this can be stated along side a statement discouraging any braindrain or duplication from wikipedia. Sorry this is not succinct, does it make sense? --Lonny 23:30, 10 October 2006 (PDT)
- Okay, when I made my last comment, I had the idea that there was an Appropedia:Policy page, but that does not exist. Actually, I thought it was the "project page" associated with this "policy discussion" page, which seems like the way it oughta be, but the project page has a redirect to this page. What's right? Create the "Policy" page, then move this page to the "Policy talk" page? Or (this seems weird) create a redirect from "Policy talk" to this page? I'll puzzle on that for a mo' (sleep on it). Replies welcome, but I'll just do something if I don't hear back. --CurtB 21:21, 22 October 2006 (PDT)
- I added an "Encyclopedic Content" policy to the Ruleset. I think we can get away without a separate policy page by referencing the Wikipedia policies. So I am putting the "Encycopedic Content" template and Appropedia:Encyclopedic on notice. (Again, I don't want to BE BOLD only to have stuff reverted...) --CurtB 19:59, 28 October 2006 (PDT)