Programmer's Wiki
Forums: Index > Watercooler > Cooperation between wikis

Drawde83 recently contacted me about cooperation between the four (now two) active programming-oriented wikis. Because programming (particularly JavaScript programming) depends on so many other areas of computing, I have expanded the scope of this (for myself, at least) to every wiki that specializes in one of those areas.

My single outreach effort related to this, directed at a very discouraged admin, failed. I think it failed because he thought I was only trying to milk some links out of him, so I thought: What can we do to counteract such a reaction? I can think of two things.

First, we can get other wikis involved in it, thus increasing the link incentive for yet more wikis. The first step in this is to get the Programmer's Wiki officially and actively involved; that would double the incentive, because so far only the JavaScript Wiki has such a proactive linking program. Of course, additional proposals for cooperation are welcome - no matter how small.

Second, we shouldn't link to uninvolved wikis from our content. This will be hard in some instances; for example, I'm expecting to write a wiki script on w:c:php and would like to refer to it from the JavaScript Wiki. Maybe we should be lax on this restriction... I don't know; what do you think? Should this also apply to MediaWiki:Newarticletext? I don't think so, but I'm open to other opinions.

So what is the program, currently? First, the joining wiki's staff must select several other wikis which are relevant to the joiner's[1] content, and list them at Project:WikiNode. Then those same links should be enclosed by a table and surrounded by appropriate text, and the result should be added to MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Examples are available here and here.

Second, whenever a topic is mentioned which is also addressed by a member wiki, the topic must be linked to the member wiki instead of Wikipedia. The Programmer's Wiki (or rather, Drawde83 and I) already does this with the JavaScript Wiki and maybe the other two (now inactive) members of Drawde83's original cooperative. This currently provides no incentive because there is no official coalition, and therefore neither is there any promise of links dependent on membership in the coalition.

I think at this stage of things we should just focus on getting more wikis joined up. I don't see what's wrong with non-member wikis (or wikipedia) being linked to, if they are they have the best information on a particular topic. another suggestion is we could create a template with links to each member wiki to be included on the members main pages --Drawde83 09:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is the best available resource, it can be linked to in the member wiki's See also section. This way, people interested in that topic both learn about the wiki which specializes in it and have access to the best resource.
The template is a great idea... I'll try to get to that today. --Jesdisciple (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

importing articles[]

Here is a suggestion. We could improve other wikis by importing their programming related articles. We can then improve on them and at some stage they can then import them back.

In the process the programming articles that they have not written will be red linked on our wiki. We can create those articles and put a soft redirect on the other wiki. Both wikis benefit. They get better quality articles and we get more articles and links to our wiki.

My suggestion for this would be to team up with more established wikis that are not directly related to comp sci. for example the Psychology wiki has a decent section on computer science but a number of their pages have just been copied from wikipedia.

What do you think?

--Drawde83 04:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think the wiki which is more interested in the article (i.e., the wiki which the article is more relevant to) would keep it and the other would have a soft redirect, regardless of who had it first. Is there any reason that the original holder should keep the article even if all the content is more relevant to another wiki? (The authors have all the same rights so long as it's hosted on a wiki.)
I guess the reciprocal link (the one opposite the soft redirect) would be of the same form as I used on Webmonkey? (BTW, I guess our soft redirects would be a good reason to do that on other wikis... If available, we should ask the admins first, though.)
The Psychology Wiki is indeed ripe for harvesting comp sci content... However, I think we should be careful to leave content where it's relevant. (So content relevant to them but not to us should be over there but not over here.) --Jesdisciple (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
We import these Comp sci articles which gives us a jump start on articles that we would've started from scratch anyway. If they like our improvements they can import the articles back (we still have a version on our wiki).
With the soft redirects I would only put those for topics that are red links on their wiki. It's an improvement over what they had and they can replace it if they want to later.
If a link is a red link on their comp sci pages (the ones we've copied) then thats a good sign that it is not relevant for them (but perfect for us)
I don't really want to get into a fight with another wiki over them having articles that are more relevant here. The aim should be to encourage their members that are interested to visit here and help out a bit.
I hope that explains things a bit better--Drawde83 10:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I see. I was thinking the generic programming content should have one copy, which would remove the need for synchronizing the articles manually after the initial cooperation. For the generic stuff (except e.g. the basic definition), the readers and editors could come over here; for how programming relates to psychology, our readers and editors could go over there.
My proposals were based on the presumption that their community supports them. If their community were to give any hint of a fight over any content, I would take that as solid evidence that the content is relevant to them. I consider this conversation as the framing of our collective proposal to them. When we actually start talking with them, we can negotiate based on such collective proposals. --Jesdisciple (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The point of picking communities that are not directly related to the topic is that there should be no fights. The Other wiki should see this as an oppertunity to build a resource they can link too/copy from. I think we should make the other wiki realise that we are not going to custom make their article for them (otherwise we'd just work on their wiki). We are providing a more suitable environment for the articles topic.
I don't know if there are any more problems with this concept?. I suggest we try it out and let any further bugs/issues get worked out that way.--Drawde83 22:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess you either didn't read or didn't believe my last paragraph, which doesn't put me in any position to have my objections heard. So I have none to give you, as I don't feel like wasting my time again. --Jesdisciple (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
So if those are the terms we have to work under, let's get to it. I've apparently been too rough in my dealings and now I'm paying for it... I only wish communication were a more natural reaction to such.
By the way, I'm formalizing our cooperation at Wikia:Interwiki_Integration. Contribution and discussion are invited. Also, please watch the page to be involved in the consensus. --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


ok I'm going to create the MediaWiki:Newarticletext page but I'm not sure what wikis we should include. Obviously Javascript would be one. what do you guys suggest. --Drawde83 21:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of my suggestions are at Programmer's_Wiki:WikiNode, although this wiki tends to touch on various computing topics, which are listed at that link. For example, we have a small list of software and a few facts about operating systems. Indeed, some of that stuff could be exported. --Jesdisciple (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also why do the links on your example page link to MediaWiki:Newarticletext on the other wikis? --Drawde83 21:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The page is displayed when the user edits a non-existent (new) article. Each link actually points to the article of the same name ({{FULLPAGENAME}}) on the appropriate wiki for the user's convenience. Because {{FULLPAGENAME}} works on the prototype page as well as new pages, the links point to the prototype pages of other wikis when viewed on the local prototype page. Is that confusing enough? --Jesdisciple (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah it sounds confusing but I get it.--Drawde83 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


For. I've no problem with it. A merger of content IMO would be imperative to providing easily-accessed information. Gp75motorsports (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)




  1. We really need to think of a better word than "joiner." I didn't say "joining wiki" again because it sounded verbose and redundant.

--Jesdisciple (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)