Talk:External link

Merge

This page seems to be more oriented towards the Wikiversity namespace (ie dealing with Wikiversity policy/practice/organisation). There is already a page (stub) at Wikiversity:External_links - I propose we merge the two at that page, leaving this as a redirect. Thoughts? Cormaggio ^talk 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking when I edited it earlier today. On the other hand, look at what links to this and who edited the pages. On the third hand, I remain in favour of putting it in the Wikiversity namespace. McCormack 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The context in which it's been used is usually either towards either the "Wikiversity:" or "Help:" namespaces, and I think the pages where it's been used also need to be clarified, delineated and/or merged. I'm still in favour of a straightforward merge between these two pages, keeping the main (ie non-redirect) page in the Wikiversity namespace. Cormaggio ^talk 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree to the merge. The two pages can serve totally different uses. Policy pages can go in the "Wikiversity:" namespace. Pages in the main namespace should be crafted as learning resources. Some of us are gradually creating a set of pages in the main namespace for learning about all aspects of the MediaWiki software. --JWSchmidt 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JWSchmidt's distinction between policy and learning is both correct and unsustainable, which brings is again to the dilemma over the status of many of his activities, namely, that he does (very useful) things which lie between policy and teaching (and "help", for that matter - let's bring in that 3rd namespace). If they were "my" creations, I'd put them in the Wikiversity (or Help) namespace with a few redirects from the main namespace where crucial keywords were involved, but I can see the validity of an alternative point of view and the need to respect this. Perhaps the solution is that for those of his pages which have this multi-functional role, redirects from identically named pages in the other two namespaces should be added routinely. What do you think, JWS? McCormack 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I do not understand why you use the term "unsustainable". I've been thinking about these matters a lot during the past several weeks (for example, see User:JWSchmidt/Blog/27 May 2007) and I've reached the conclusion that it is good for Wikiversity and all of Wikimedia if we take seriously the idea of having main namespace learning resources about wiki, MediaWiki, Wikiversity and all Wikimedia projects. When you say, "If they were my creations," I suspect your thinking is being guided by the way things are done at Wikipedia. In my own case, I feel like I have been struggling to both escape from aspects of Wikipedia that are bad for Wikiversity while trying to learn from those aspects of Wikipedia that are relevant to Wikiversity. I've started to look at the "Help:" and "Wikiversity:" namespaces in new ways that I think are healthy, although they do take some getting used to. I'm trying to explore what can (and should) be done at Wikiversity and such exploration will undoubtedly lead to problems, errors, backtracking, correction but also hopefully a few useful advances. I agree that we need to do a better job of linking related pages. In many cases, I am cautious about categorizing and linking new pages I create. I view many of the pages I create and edit as being experimental and under construction and as scaffolding for a more (hopefully) coherent final product....the coherence of which might only become manifest at a future time when there is a network of such pages...the sense of each page will only be fully apparent in the context of a more complete network of pages. I'll try do a better job of linking related pages as I create them and I certainly invite other people jump in to help/question/debate/explore. --JWSchmidt 06:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, JWS. By "unsustainable", I mean that the distinction collapses (in some circumstances) because you, as an author, specialise in pages which subvert the distinction. It's a trademark of your (excellent) approach to Wikiversity. That's why I originally told Cormaggio to look at where the page linked back to, and who made them - because it went back to your Wiki 101 learning project - and I remember your views about namespaces and learning projects! For myself, I'd try to stick to more straightforward, traditional distinctions. But the JWS-trademark namespace-crossing approach is a valid alternative. Hence my suggestion that we go with your approach, but where appropriate add redirects from the other namespaces. McCormack 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of trying to have clear definitions of the types of content that are suitable for each namespace. The natures and uses of the MediaWiki "project" and "help" (as originally defined at Wikipedia) reflect the nature of the Wikipedia project and the fact that in that project only encyclopedia articles are allowed in the main namespace. In my view, the natures of the "Wikiversity:" namespace and Wikiversity's "help" namespace should reflect the needs of this wiki project and the differences between Wikipedia and and Wikiversity. "Distinctions" between main namespace content and "help" namespace content that are suitable for Wikipedia are not automatically suitable for Wikiversity. Rather than call what is going on here a "namespace-crossing approach", I think we should think in terms of trying define for ourselves how Wikiversity should make use of its namespaces. --JWSchmidt 18:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a useful discussion. I think that, firstly, it's good (indeed, necessary) to stress the learning in all that we do - whether it is in developing policies, learning materials, help pages, organiser pages, etc. So, in this sense, I suppose, Wikiversity has to allow some blurring of namespaces, since our policies are themselves learning projects, and our learning projects can, in some cases, refer to our policies/practices (or those of Wikipedia, or other wikis). However, I think these learning projects which refer to Wikiversity need to be clearly marked as such, in order to avoid confusion. Saying something like: "This is a learning project about external links in MediaWiki wikis" would be a good start - and preferably along with a link to a "Topic:" page (or some organiser page) that links similar resources together. I think, to avoid the confusion I had about this page, the more we clearly label our pages (and what they're for), the more useful they will be. Cormaggio ^talk 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"learning projects which refer to Wikiversity need to be clearly marked as such" <-- Part of my problem is that my thinking about such projects continues to evolve. My original expectation was that Wikiversity would mostly start out with experienced editors from Wikipedia. If that had been the case, then providing help pages in the form of traditional "user manual" pages in the "help" namespace would have been adequate. However, my concerns have now turned to the fact that there is a large number of Wikiversity participants who are new to wiki and so we need alternatives to the "user manual" approach. I agree that there should be a centralized content development project to organize work on main namespace pages that are about Wikiversity. Right now we have Topic:Wiki, Topic:Wikiversity, Topic:MediaWiki and Topic:Wiki Science, each of which link to pages such as Introduction to Wikiversity and Wiki 101. We also have Topic:Developing Wikiversity which links to Topic:MediaWiki. --JWSchmidt 18:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to delineate the Help and Main namespaces better by identifying what they're both good at/for? I think the Help namespace is useful in its traditional way on Wikipedia - ie guiding people through the process of a certain task, like creating a new page, a link, a table, etc. The Wikiversity Main namespace sometimes does this for non-Wikiversity materials, but it also allows for collaborative learning projects, which go beyond the "read the manual/material" model. My thinking is that the Main namespace should concentrate on explicitly collaborative learning activities in instances where other namespaces can take care of "manual reading/development" (about Wikiversity). I think the Main namespace doesn't then need to duplicate too much of the Help or Wikiversity namespaces - but rather provide added backup, with a clear goal that can't be met by the other pages. Cormaggio ^talk 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)