This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index Narutopedia Announcements Attribution or Imports?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4771 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I've been hearing that Wikipedia has been deleting some of their Naruto content, which does prove to have a bit of an attribution issue to it. So it's time to decide, should we continue using attribution, or push everything to the side so that we can Import and merge instead.

I should first explain what both are:

  • All attributed articles have the {{Wikipedia}} template at the top.
  • The template can be removed after we have significantly improved the article.
  • Things can be copied to different names. So we can copy Wikipedia:Jiraiya (naruto) to Jiraiya instead of copying it to Jiraiya (naruto) then moving it.
  • Any user can move Wikipedia content here with this method.
  • This poses possible GFDL issues... If a page is deleted, the attribution links are no longer valid, And therefore we're violating the GFDL because authors are no longer attributed.
  • The entire history of the article is preserved so we do not need to add the {{Wikipedia}} template to the page.
  • We never half to link back to Wikipedia as the origin of the article because the list of authors is preserved in our own history.
  • Import/Export cannot change names... If we are to copy Wikipedia:Jiraiya (naruto) it will be placed at Jiraiya (naruto) and then we'll half to move it.
  • Normal users cannot Import, for this to work a Sysop needs to Export the Wikipedia pages then Import them here.
  • There are no GFDL issues, Even if Wikipedia deletes a page, we have the entire article history here, so we never half to worry about a page being deleted and our links becoming invalid.
  • Because we already have pages like Naruto Uzumaki in place, we actually half to move all our current articles to another space out of the way, and then import all the Naruto articles here.

If you're wondering what the steps for Import/Export are:

  1. Staff create a namespace such as Archive: for all our current articles to be moved to.
  2. I have a bot move all the articles in the Main namespace to the Archive: namespace.
  3. I Export all the Naruto related articles on Wikipedia with their histories into XML files.
  4. I alter the XML files to append to everyone's username to identify where the users are located.
  5. I then Import the XML files here.
  6. We move the (naruto) appended articles to proper names and delete the (naruto) pages.
  7. We split the articles up into their own articles.
  8. We format the articles again to work with our Wiki and replace/remove/add the templates as we need.
  9. We then copy bits of our old articles in the Archive: namespace into the imported articles to merge our own work into the articles.
  10. We then merge the histories of our articles with the imported ones and remove the ones in the Archive: namespace.
  11. When we're done importing and merging everything, we have the staff remove the Archive: namespace.

Anyone got any questions?

If you're wondering about me... I'm kinda thinking that the nicest method of doing things would be to Import/Export. If you're wondering about the advantages I'm thinking of:

  • We don't need to use those ugly {{Wikipedia}} templates anymore.
  • We don't have people working on old bad articles that have not yet been updates with a proper Wikipedia copy.
  • We don't half to worry about Wikipedia deleting pages that we have attribution links to.
  • We can freely manage all the content here because we never half to go back to Wikipedia to copy another missing article.
~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Aug 28, 2007 @ 01:39 (UTC)

So the war has finally reached its surviving refuge. Anyway I support the Import as its the only one where we can save valueable info if the articles are deleted. Give me the power to do so (and instructions on how) and I could do the task of importing and stuff. Though time is running years starting....TheUltimate3 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What I see as the main problem of the method you call "attribution" is indeed the ugly template: in fact, it has to be added to all articles when they are derived from one shitty list, and be kept until the content start to look completely different from the original. However, the method you call "imports" has much more problems: it's not only the matter of writing a script that will copy and paste all histories. The main work will be in rewriting all those articles in Narutopedia style and (most of the time) reverting changes to more sensible ones - right now all current versions on Wikipedia contain far too little info. Besides, there's a lot of vandalism going on in Wikipedia, so you'll also be importing thousands and thousands of edit wars with people who wanted the Fourth to be called Arashi or the blue-haired Akatsuki to be named Heren. Don't make me start on them using different layout templates and differently named images... And by the way, there are no GFDL issues with deleted articles because the copyright law has no subject in that case, Wikipedia itself is no more responsible for it, and people who were the contributors will be happy to know their work didn't end in vain.

A bit off the topic, but I think it would be much more useful to write a bot that'll check all articles for duplicates (for every "X Y" a page "Y X" should either not exist or be a redirect) and insert something like a {{merge}} template in the case of duplicate articles and a redirect in case of non-existing stuff in characters categories.

What I counter-propose is:

  • First of all, we do not incorporate any of Wikipedia content. At all. We will use Wikipedia as a source: its contents will be reworked in our pages, and it will be credited at the end of the page among other references.
  • Then, a {{better}} template should be made that will contain text in the lines of "The topic of this article is better covered by following article: (link)". That link can also be a Wikipedia link.
  • The contributors then will not lose all the work they've already done, and will not be overwhelmed by the amount of new work awaiting them and depressed about it. We will just browse through a category with all articles with better Wikipedia counterparts, open a wikipedia article in another window and start comparing, copying and extending the existing stuff with what they got (or rather what they used to have) there.

That's my view on the problem. We simply lack the sheer manpower to deal with all the imported articles, and I'm afraid the wiki'll turn into one big mess. --Radaghast 12:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is a GFDL issue. It's not a copyright issue, but an issue of complying with the very license we use. Every author needs to be attributed and that's what the history pages are for. But since our source has no history we're no longer attributing a number of the authors.

Not using Wikipedia content goes against the focus of the WGEP. Wikipedia has plenty of good articles for us to use. The reason we use Wikipedia content, is because we don't want to be simply copying the same idea that is already doing. They are the ones creating articles from scratch. We're the ones taking Wikipedia content and expanding that into more comprehensive guides. As for the manpower of converting those articles do remember a few things:

  • We have very few articles that were properly copied. Most of our articles are actually copies of Wikipedia articles that are out of date and haven't even had many edits to them other than minor changes that were probably already done in more up to date WP articles. Or articles that amount to a few paragraphs that are complete generalizations that Wikipedia has already expanded on. We already have a lot of work to do, this is just another method of doing that.
  • Manpower doesn't matter, nor does time. The point of a wiki is that everyone can edit it, and it lasts forever. It doesn't matter if something isn't done now. Because in say, 20 years when someone comes along and sees the site. It'll still be here and they can then edit it.
    • One of the key features of a wiki, is the fact that is is never complete. Whatever you do, a wiki keeps going and going. As long as Wiki exists our wiki exists. As long as people exist, we have potential readers and contributors. As long as we have a wiki, we have more we can work on in it.

As for those bits about templates, categories, and edit wars. Lemme do try out some stuff, I know I can exclude entire revisions from imports, but I have an idea or two to help me view those diffs and modify those revs. As for the templates, interlanguage, and interwiki, and category... I can pull out half those issues with a bot or two. And that includes half the template issues. ^_^ We have all the time in the world to do this...

TheUltimate3, ^_^ don't worry about importing on your own. Export/Import is a simple set of GET and POST requests. I can GET the exports from Wikipedia using a bot to get past the annoying revision limits. And then modify the xml files on my computer to append to the usernames, and also try and pull out some of those useless war edits. Mostly the vandalism and their reverts, page moves, and edits which contributed to either side of a war. ~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Aug 29, 2007 @ 08:49 (UTC)

Well if we are going to that import thing

I suggest we do it NOW. List of Akatsuki Members was completely deleted, and all the Naruto pages could go along with it very quick "due to lack of sources" because everyone knows the material it comes from is not valid. /sarcasm. So if the bot is already importing them, then we should try to make it a little faster...--TheUltimate3 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

^_^ The task will first need a bit if a request from the staff for that Archive: namespace, and a bot will move all our pages there. And I can code a bot to do Export/Import. Though I was working on a script to let me see revisions and diffs inside of a Dump and remove parts of the dump. ~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Aug 31, 2007 @ 04:23 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.