Document talk:The Three Establishment Model of Covert Politics
Wikis & Sourced Documents
Why the wikified version? Should people be editing this? If so, how/why? The idea of wikis is for everyone to modify at hoc etc. but since this is from elsewhere, it would be a bit disingenuous to edit it.
Adding links, i.e. CIA-> CIA is some help, but the label at the top makes me wary of more significant editing it.
Is there a standard for this? i.e. Anything in the 'document' namespace is for reference only, not for editing, other namespaces are good to edit. If not, perhaps this would help?
Robin 08:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- The 'Document' namespace rules are set out here. Additionally I see no problem with adding links, both within the text and in a clearly separate 'See Also' section for example. As long as the original document text remains otherwise untouched. I guess a 'Document editing rules' link should be included in the 'Document Provenance' section too. I'll have a look at the 'DocDisclaimer' template. Probably best to put it there because it will show in all existing Documents then. Agreed at about normal wiki-editing conventions. However, I do think it useful to the project to be hosting original stuff external to the project itself. The precise criteria for including them are unwritten as yet - ie they tend to get included if I judge them to be important and only available on obscure sites which may or may not be around next week/year, whatever. --Peter P 12:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Major Edit removing artcile content
FI I've sent Jvr the following email today:
Wikispooks articles prefixed with the word 'Document' are intended for original articles credited to their author and source and which appear, either below the 'WS Comment section or in a linked pdf, doc etc file. The prefix renders them less visible to search engines, or rather tends to lower their ranking. For both those reasons I think it would be better to move your modified page to the regular article namespace (ie remove the 'Document' prefix) and perhaps rename it to something more related to its function too. I'm quite happy to do that myself but will wait to here from you about a possible rename first.
--Peter P 07:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)