Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Inclusion criteria?

This list has no stated inclusion criteria per WP:LIST that I can find. Wiki farms currently in the list that don't have articles of their own should probably be removed as unimportant. --Ronz 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This list meets the inclusion criteria of WP:LIST#Lead section or paragraph.

From that section is this:

• If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criteria is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).

Please stop wikistalking me, Ronz. --Timeshifter 19:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 19:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What do the colors stand for?

Why are some boxes green and some purple? Please explain! Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the box background colors. They were inconsistently used and applied. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Caracho|Caracho]] (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Caracho 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Zoho's Wiki

Someone should add Zoho's Wiki things, because it's good and I would, but I don't wanna mess up the page. URL: Wiki.Zoho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkanemancer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Engine: Use "Base" instead of just "Custom"

Because there are many "Custom" wiki engines, I think is better to use "Base wiki engine", and then, add at the end ", custom". For instance,

"MediaWiki, custom"

instead of just

"Custom"

That is the reason why I mark initial "Custom" as "(?), custom"

[[User:

Removals

Is there any objection to removing the following?

YouFig : Doesn't seem to be about wikis

Gratis-Wiki : Now part of Wikia

GROU.PS : Not a wiki (the site's own tour says it's not a wiki)

HelpingStudents: Has an Alexa rank of 5 million. I don't think this is notable enough yet to be included.

JotSpot : Was bought by google and no longer exists. (sites.google.com exists but isn't this)

LittleWiki : Seems to just let people create pages on the 1 wiki rather than being a wiki farm

Metadot : Doesn't seem to be about wikis

MonkeeBiz : seems to be some sort of scheduler; nothing to do with wikis

Richdex : site points to a domain hosting page

Schtuff.com : no longer exists. redirects to pbwiki

WikiLot : Now offline. Some of their wikis are moving to Wikia

WikiNote : Just pages, not wikis

Babylon.wiki : seems to be part of wiki-wiki.ru which is listed separately; not a wiki farm of its own

There are also 4 on the list which are offline. Angela. 07:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I will remove them in a few days if no one objects. I think we should leave HelpingStudents though. The list isn't too long yet to start weeding out stuff in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The sites have been removed from the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ScribbleWiki can be removed now too. ^[1] Angela. 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! You wrote previously that there were 4 that were offline. Which ones? Are they still offline? It it looks permanent I can remove them too. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which 4 were offline then, but I just clicked all the links in the top table. The projectlocker url needs correcting. riters is offline (alexa rank 10 million). spiveyworks points to an error page - I don't know what the correct page is or if this should be on the list since it's not clear what they actually are. Angela. 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the links. I corrected the projectlocker URL. I removed Riters.com since that link does not work. I did a Google site search of SpiveyWorks.com for "wiki". It has a couple wikis but it does not seem to be a wiki farm. So I removed it from the list. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Spot Alexa rating incorrect

Many of the wikis hosted at Wiki Spot have their own domain, especially the larger and more active ones. These hosted wikis have higher rankings than the hub and smaller wikis hosted at third level domain names. See Davis Wiki's ranking, for instance. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/daviswiki.org 68.63.165.28 (reply here, please) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I added a note in the article about this. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

'The Alexa traffic rankings are not accurate for those wiki farms that allow some of their hosted wikis to have separate domain names.' Actually, the qualification is not justified. If you have any ordered set and shift the rank of one of its elements, then some or all of the other ranks are changed. If that's too abstract, consider the size of sun, earth, and moon. Place them in order and try to put one, and one only, in the wrong place in the order. Can't be done. If domain hosting results in several of the relative (i.e. just with in this group, which I presume is what is of interest) rankings being wrong, then in all probability most are, maybe all.

The statement also seems to promote the dubious notion that - apart from this complication with domain names - Alexa rankings would be accurate. If it's considered valuable to have some indication of traffic ranking (I'm not sure why, as it doesn't tell us whether it's the farm or the hosted sites that make a farm popular or otherwise, and popularity is not a measure of quality) and if Alexa is considered the best measure we've got (I have no opinion on that) then perhaps there should be at least some mention that there's no hard evidence as to Alexa's accuracy?

BTW, in case the deletion issue isn't yet finally settled, I'll add my name to the keep side. Frankly, I was amazed that people wanted to delete this page on pretext of WP policies that all too often seem to get more attention than creating, maintaining, and improving valuable content.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to clarify the Alexa info in the intro. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Seeing the history of this article, it seems like there has been an issue about which wiki farms merit inclusion in this listing. As such, it might be best to develop some sort of guideline for inclusion so this issue does not arise in the future. I've seen talk of WP:SET in the history, but perhaps some other form of notability testing such as WP:WEB would be better suited for this instance. I know that WEB is about articles for web sites, but I believe the same concepts and principles can be applied here as well. Besides, if a wiki farm has an article about itself, then it probably merits inclusion here anyway. As such, perhaps in order to be listed a wiki farm should meet at least one of the following:

• It has an article about itself on the English Wikipedia
• It has an alexa rank of under 1,000,000
• It meets the criteria in WP:WEB but does not yet have an article about itself

As such, wikis that merit inclusion will meet at least one of those, and wikis that do not merit inclusion will not. What say you? --Skizzerz (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed several times. WP:List does not require narrowing the inclusion criteria unless the list is getting long. This list is not too long yet. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skizzerz. We need better inclusion criteria here. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove all the links as you did. [2] Others have wanted the links to the wiki farms. See previous talk. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean the previous discussion that I started and recently pointed out that the consensus was for removal? --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See the comments from Qxz, Morscs5, and Yablochko. They appreciated having all the wiki farms listed here.

It is necessary to have the links in order to check whether the wiki farms exist. See the previous discussions concerning dead wiki farm sites. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no comments from anyone other than myself that are relevant. Basic consensus building requires addressing actual concerns and wider consensus. This is not a vote. See WP:CON for more information on proper consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your addition of the subsection "Removal of URL column and links" AFTER I added my comments is confusing. The talk section as a whole dealt with both inclusion criteria and links. So I am still referring to both. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had simply followed WP:TALK and WP:NPA by discussing the edit without reference to the editor, then we wouldn't be wasting time with this. There was no discussion of links at all in this section of the talk page, which is why I linked to the previous discussion. --Ronz (talk)

In your edit summary for your first recent removal of all the links you referred to the talk page: "removed linkspam per talk, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINKS"

The only recent comment of yours that I saw at the time was this: "I agree with Skizzerz. We need better inclusion criteria here." So I replied to that comment. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[3] --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Linkfarm revisited

Just to summarize, the URL column should be removed per consensus above, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. So I've looked over the conversation here, and to be honest, I don't have any problem with the URL category. It doesn't really strike as spam since they all seem to fit the inclusion criteria. The links might be more gracefully included than just the standard numbered link - maybe have it say clearwiki.com and have the link - but it seems okay. Similarly, WP:NOTLINK doesn't apply here since there is a lot more meaningful data attached to the entries in the list.

As a side note, I think it would be most helpful to this article to either create articles for each of the entries on here, or at least give some references as to why they're notable. I personally don't see the Alexa criterion as making it notable, and instead I'd just fall on WP:WEB as a way of determining notability. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Prior consensus on WP:NOTLINK is that it applies.

Yes, the inclusion criteria (or lack of it) is problematic as well, but there's much more flexibility in that. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, some of the confusion is cause by my referencing WP:SPAM when I meant WP:EL. I've taken the dispute there. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

External links do not go into the body of an article. That is the guideline. If added they should be removed. Internal wikilinks are what is called for here. If there is no article, either a redlink should be used or none at all. If something isn't notable enough for an article, it should never be linked to externally instead. 2005 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They are primary sources, and therefore allowed in the article. The topic is notable. There are no inclusion criteria requiring notability or a certain Alexa level for every entry. That only becomes necessary when there are too many entries. There are not too many entries. See the rest of this talk page. This has all been discussed before. See also the AfD discussions. The AfD closing admin statement was to keep this page. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing issues. "Sources" are not "external links". The links in this article source nothing and thus are just external links. they must be removed from the article. Also, AFDs have nothing to do with the subject. A subject can be notable and an article kept even if it is in atrocious condition. Whether this topic is notable or not is not related to it violating the external link guideline -- obviously other articles also violate guidelines, and those also need to be cleaned up, but that doesn't mean the topic doesn't merit an article. 2005 (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the version of the article at the time of the April 10, 2007 keep statement by the closing admin at the last AfD (see "article milestones" at the top of the talk page). Note that there were URLs for every entry. At that time the URLs were next to the name of each wiki farm, and were not in a separate column. But there were URLs, and the same guideline discussions occurred. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_wiki_farms_(2nd_nomination)

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a web directory

We do NOT put external links to websites in articles, especially not in lists. This is standard on any article. We are WP:NOT a web directory, and we do not create tables to try to bypass WP:EL rules. Those all need to be removed, period. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think, now perusing the above talk page sections, that we have CLEAR consensus to do so. Well, policy insists we do, so of course we do, but we also have multiple editors pointing it out to one editor who seemingly wants to ignore policy. DreamGuy (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, all of the Alexa links are external as well. Why do those get to stay? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are references. I'll start a new discussion because there are multiple issues. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This definitly violates WP:SPAM as well as WP:EL, and WP:LINKFARM. Themfromspace (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Links and fact checking

The links are the only way to check some of the facts. Why don't you ask Angela (a Wikimedia Foundation Board member, I believe) if she would want to delete the links that allowed her to check quickly whether some of the wiki sites were actually wiki farms in a talk section higher up.

Also, ask the admin who closed the last AfD why he did not say there was a problem with the links.

Please let the discussion continue for a few days or a week before more editing. There is no consensus yet. Parachuting in a couple spam fighters and claiming consensus is not the way to work. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to all: WP:3RR is still in effect, and Timeshifter, that was your second one of the day. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Please see my comments in the next talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexa references

I've formatted all the Alexa traffic rankings references. However, each should include the access date. Either we can go back and determine when each was accessed for the current data, or we could update all the traffic data with a current date and indicate that date. Can anyone think of another alternative? --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexa is not a very reliable source to begin with and very easily gamed by people to inflate their own sites, so anything so dependent upon such rankings is going to be in trouble just to start with, which leads me to the section below... DreamGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:45, January 7, 2009.

I agree that Alexa isn't the best way to determine all of these to be WP:N; each of these sites should be notable enough on their own to warrant their own article. Some of them do have that, but not all. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that all the entries in a list have to be notable. It is the list topic that must be notable. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It refers to Master list of Nixon political opponents. Note the red links of non-notable entries.

Editors can reach consensus that a particular list has become large enough that stricter inclusion criteria are needed. One possible inclusion criteria is notability. I edit WP:List and other list guideline pages. See also my comments at Wikipedia talk:Lists. I don't think the current list is too long. See WP:NOTPAPER and Wikipedia:Article size.

If after adequate discussion over a week or two, we decide that the list is too long there is no reason that the inclusion criteria can't have something to do with Alexa traffic rankings. Admin and Wikimedia Foundation advisory board chair User:Angela suggested using Alexa traffic rankings higher up. See #Removals - I think having any Alexa ranking is adequate inclusion criteria for now.

I noticed that the Alexa rankings also include a link to the site. So deleting the URL column only delays access to the sites, since access can occur via the Alexa references.

This only delays fact-checking, and wastes the time of busy admins like User:Angela, and editors like me. User:Angela checked all the wiki farm sites by using the URL column. See the relevant talk section higher up: #Removals - I also checked many sites. Here is the version of the article before all the removals of the URL column:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=262139186

So now it takes twice as long to get to the sites to update chart info. Ronz removed the URL column today against consensus. Ronz did not have consensus to remove the URL column as he claimed in his edit summaries. HelloAnnyong and I both had written that we saw no problem with having the URL column. HelloAnnyong wrote (emphasis added):

So I've looked over the conversation here, and to be honest, I don't have any problem with the URL category. It doesn't really strike as spam since they all seem to fit the inclusion criteria. The links might be more gracefully included than just the standard numbered link - maybe have it say clearwiki.com and have the link - but it seems okay.

Ronz had replied to that comment at 18:26, 6 January 2009. That reply occurred before his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th removals of the URL column in the last few days.

Ronz first removed the URL column 19:49, 5 January 2009 without any recent back-and-forth discussion. I reverted him pointing out that he had no consensus to do so. His 4th removal at 17:32, 7 January 2009 had this edit summary: "finished - removed URL column per consensus for well over a year - formatted Alexa refs - still needs more formatting of refs."

Claiming consensus when there is no consensus is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It comes under mischaracterizing or misrepresenting the views of others. For example; see: Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others. ..."

I asked people at Wikipedia talk:Lists to comment here. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus that external links do not go in the body of an article. Denying that is silly, move on. As for Alexa, it's a joke. It's not a reliable source. It's hard to imagine why anyone would want to include usless clutter in any article. 2005 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil: "Denying that is silly, move on." --Timeshifter (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexa may not be perfect, but I have never seen a ruling that it couldn't be used as a reference. The site URLs are primary references. Reference links are allowed in the body of the article. Or you can put ref tags around them as Ronz did with the Alexa references.

<ref> </ref>

Note that Ronz titled this talk section "Alexa references." HelloAnnyong pointed out the similarity between the Alexa links and the site links. They are both links. References are almost always links. They aren't useless clutter. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was civil, but you do need to be. You stated Claiming consensus when there is no consensus is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. That is an ominous sounding statement, and out of place since consensus exists and has existed for a long time. If you want to change the consensus, go to the right page. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Period. Site URLs are not a reference. That idea would allow anybody to link to any website anytime they wanted. But maybe more to the the point, it doesn't seem you understand the wikipedia-specific jargon here... external links are hyperlinks that go to external websites that are not used as references for the article as a whole or a specific sentence/paragraph. External links are never sources/references/citations. References/sources/citations are also usually hyperlinked to websites outside the wikipedia, but they are a different thing. References appear in Notes/Sources/References section(s) at the end of an article. These are completely different from external links. Perhaps it would be less confusing if you simply made the text for the name of the wiki to be the url, somesite.com, non-hyperlinked. That would seem to solve the problem. 2005 (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Period" is not very civil. You do not necessarily have the final say. The Wikipedia guidelines do. This is not very civil either: "But maybe more to the the point, it doesn't seem you understand the wikipedia-specific jargon here." It can come off as condescending. I have over 16,000 edits on Wikipedia. Maybe you should avoid the tone of authority. Period! ;) That's a joke, by the way. I understand the jargon. I have watchlisted and helped edit the external links guideline at WP:EL at times.

"References appear in Notes/Sources/References section(s) at the end of an article." Not always. See Wikipedia:Embedded citations. Putting ref tags around the URLs is an option. <ref> [URL|Site name] </ref>.

Others added the URLs, not me. They violated no guideline in adding the URLs. They just didn't finish the job. Unfinished embedded citation links are a common occurrence on Wikipedia pages.

"Site URLs are not a reference." They can be. If Microsoft makes a claim that is reported in a Wikipedia article, we can reference their page that makes the claim. As a primary source.

In addition to secondary sources such as newspapers, magazines, and media websites. For analysis, interpretation, evaluation, and so on. Please see: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

"Perhaps it would be less confusing if you simply made the text for the name of the wiki to be the url, somesite.com, non-hyperlinked. That would seem to solve the problem." That would be better than nothing, but would still waste the time of editors who try to verify the info in the charts.

I guess you see the need for the URL (at least in non-hyperlinked form) but you really dislike linking. Why the hatred of linking? I don't get it. Spam links and verification links are not used for the same purposes. Otherwise all reference links could be looked at as spam links. Spam links are links that serve no purpose other than to advertise a site. A link on a Wikipedia page that editors allow on the page in good faith in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines is not a spam link. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I said "period" because the line is what the guideline says, not my opinion. The guideline has final say. I quoted it. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. You then say the guideline does have the final say??? The other thing, "If Microsoft makes a claim that is reported in a Wikipedia article, we can reference their page that makes the claim. As a primary source." That's not what is happening here. It's completely unrelated. But I'm not going to go on and on about this. The external links guidelines says what it says. That is the consensus. This article should follow the guideline, and any editor who makes the article comply with the guideline by removing external links from the body of the article is following consensus and acting properly. 2005 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I showed you the guidelines. You ignored what I wrote concerning the guidelines. Please see my previous reply. Bringing in a tag-team of spam-fighters who claim their own personal interpretations of guidelines, and then claiming a non-existent consensus, is not following the guidelines. Making it bold does not make it a consensus. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "interpreting" anything. What is in bold is quoting the wording of the guideline. Read WP:EL. It's the consensus, no matter how much you don't like it. 2005 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) At User talk:IanManka I made a request for comment. Here is the version of the article at the time of the April 10, 2007 keep statement by the closing admin, User:IanManka, at the last AfD (see "article milestones" at the top of the talk page). Note that there were URLs for every entry. At that time the URLs were next to the name of each wiki farm, and were not in a separate column. But there were URLs, and the same guideline discussions occurred. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of wiki farms (2nd nomination) --Timeshifter (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Later note: Ronz's version of the article that is being discussed in this talk section:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=265992096

See the Alexa references in the Notes section at the end. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How to make this page better

• How often should Alexa Rank be updated?
• How many wikis are hosted
• How many users are hosted
• What is their private/public wiki ratio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please post suggestions on how to make this page better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is Tettra included?

100.6.102.173 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for inclusion for a wiki-farm from a person with a WP:COI

I would like to nominate Miraheze to be included. As you can see from Special:Permalink/776971341#Suggesting_Miraheze_as_an_alternative_wiki, I have a serious WP:COI here and should do no more than make this nomination.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide some independent sources demonstrating why we should add it? --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

An abstract was submitted by me to a (very) local interdisciplinary conference that we held at our campus. No poster or abstract was refereed, and all submissions were from our faculty or students. I don't think this counts, but when I do something at a conference or get something published, I will let you know. --Guy vandegrift (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to keep a eye here. However, I think you are describing a primary, non-independent source. A source that lacks independence will probably not be enough. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand and endorse the need to avoid such sources on WP pages. But what about one in "Wikipedia:" space, such as Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Since it is an advice page between editors, shouldn't rules be looser? My intent is to help Wikipedia by offering teachers better options than having inexperienced students contribute to Wikipedia. The Miraheze wikifarm and Wikiversity could help with this. The problem with Wikiversity is that students can see each other write, and in large classes it is common to assign one topic for all the students and let them compete. In such cases, students should write in private, and only publish after it is given a good grade. Should I just go into Wikipedia:Alternative outlets and write one or two sentences about Miraheze?--Guy vandegrift (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi I wanted to support this nomination. I'm currently researching an argument list for deployment of wiki instead of sharepoint and came across this page for hosted wikis and don't know why there should be no miraheze. Thanks 89.173.201.57 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Page recommendations

1) Put this warning on the page:

• Be warned that the Wikimedia Foundation does not guarantee the quality of or endorse any of the services on the list.

2) Use the chart from:

• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Hosting_services

instead of your current chart.

I'll can make the changes if I get a positive response, or if this comment is ignored for too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.122.175 (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I very much doubt we could find consensus to include either.

The idea for a disclaimer is an interesting one, but as I've never seen anything like it anywhere on Wikipedia, I expect there's strong consensus not to include such information and that consensus is described in a policy or guideline that I can't recall.

What from that chart do you feel would help? Much of it wouldn't be allowed because Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOT and WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That guideline is Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, by the way. --Pinsplash (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

References

My reverting of a recent edit by an administrator

I reverted with this edit because I strongly disagree with it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services&type=revision&diff=793196985&oldid=793185806

I am a user of Miraheze, while user:Reception123 is an administrator. We both have some COI because I also am a Miraheze wikicreater, but requested that service solely for the purpose of creating 100 wikis for my students (see https://wright.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page )

@There'sNoTime: if you revert me on this I will take no further action, but you should know that Miraheze is a unique service that I found while researching a proposal I was going to make to the WMFfoundation to create such a wiki. And I found it on the link that you removed from this WP page. I work mostly on Wikiversity, am a professor of physics at Wright State University, and feel that Wikiversity is handicapped by the inability of students to write privately. Such private wiki-writing is essential in my courses because I don't want students looking at each other's work as the do term papers. Please reconsider your attitude towards Miraheze. They are doing good work, and they are the only ones providing this service with no advertising or fees.

I need these 100 wikis because I am striving to create an open source bank of exam questions, that unlike Osmosis is free of charge and will be hosted on Wikiversity for most exam questions, and perhaps someday also hosted on Miraheze for that "private stock" of questions that teachers want students not to see. Miraheze is in the process of registering as a non-profit, and to the best of my knowledge is run entirely by volunteers.

Yours truly-Guy vandegrift (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: the edit you restored just contains a link to MediaWiki's list of hosting providers. A link which is already present in the "External links" section at the bottom of this article. External links should not be in the body of an article, and I don't see the reason we mention this other list twice. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why we need both? This has nothing to do with Miraheze or my opinion of it, but I can't say I'm overly impressed with the amount of running around and cleaning up we're having to do -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Sorry, I shot from the hip without realizing that you already had a link to mediawiki. Would you object to the sister link shown to the right in the External Section?--Guy vandegrift (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Not a problem I wouldn't object to that at all, and think it's a great way of linking to a more inclusive list of wiki hosting services -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What are the Criteria for Inclusion on this Page?

I am wondering what are the criteria for inclusion on this page? The text notes "several of the more than 100 wiki hosting services" and I am wondering how these particular services were chosen and not the others... HSRobinson (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

They must have Wikipedia articles, i.e. WP:CORP. That said, Wikipedia has literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of shitty articles on companies that don't merit inclusion and we haven't got around to deleting yet. MER-C 13:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki link

The link is already included in the article twice (bending our guidelines for such links just a bit). I have reverted the recently added personal opinion though. Wikipedia articles don't assess the quality or usefulness of such external ressources. Editorial descriptions and comments within articles are not appropriate for encyclopedic content. GermanJoe (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Editthis.info

There's also Editthis.info to add, the wiki creation is working, but I don't know if this site is abandoned. Anyone knows if it still is a valid free wikifarm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Editthis.info seems abandoned by the owner now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)