Wikilink

“ I suppose that for being a user creation it will have to have an URL with 'Annotated' in it. Create an annotated version of every page, link everything there, the original version stays minimal. The recreation of 200 pages will be painful, but the annotated content can be added in advance (I really like that) with {{annotation}} and {{annotation switch}}. Use plain wikilinks instead of —and without— reference tags, so that the reader only clicks once to be sent the glossary entry. ”

“ On the bright side, once there is a Wikipedia link on an article, that will be in "natural order", and therefore should be picked up by search engines, so the business isn't hopeless. It is reasonable to ask how articles will actually be found, and the answer is like "they should be created with at least four incoming wikilinks anyway, and in many cases with a link from Wikipedia ”

“ I've wondered about this myself and I go for the Wikisource link first. I think it's best to stay internal to one project as much as possible with wikilinking. The author page should have a link to Wikipedia anyway, so if the reader wants WP they can get to it quite easily. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Link local. If there is no author page, then we should create red links, and create the author pages after. If there is no link, then "... one day". For full relevance, we do have the wikipedia = parameter that works in the {{header}} template. ”

“ Red links show works and authors that could, and should, exist on Wikisource but are currently not present.
A 2008 study relating to the sister project Wikipedia showed that red links helped that project grow.
Wikilinks to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects will never appear red. Such a link will appear in the same light-blue color whether the target page exists or not, and therefore inactive links are indistinguishable from active links. External links should be created only if the target page already exists, or if the target page will be created in short order. ”

“ Do what you like is the rule, but why avoid the consensus on the current standard. I would not bother attempting to merge a PG text, especially if changed here, to an authentic and clean text. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC) If this is true, then I feel that Wikisource has drifted. The distinguishing mark of Wiki software is its intelligent use of Wikilinks to other sources, or other parts of the work. That in itself is a pedagogical aim, literally leading the reader to places where they can learn more as the ancient Greek pedagogue led children to school. ”

“ Aha, such a thing already exists: {{Wikidata link}}! It will link to WS if possible, and then fall back to enWP and finally Wikidata. I don't think there would be a policy against it, since it's a lot better than a redlink IMO, but I could be wrong. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Can I have a differing opinion. If we are indicating a work that we wish to have a red link is better in the body of the work as it indicates that we don't have the work, and aligns with Wikisource:Wikilinks. We definitely would create the author page and list and link to the scan there. ”

“ Nothing should be presented as annotated (save those works utilizing the basic in-line wikilinking as a form of annotation) without the faithful completion of the transcription & proofreading of the work as published taking place prior to the creation of that annotated derivative. ”

“ The solution of Users (anyone, 9-90) creating 'portals' means some has to devise it, create it, check it, maintain it, argue about it, arrange it, categorise it, and inevitably conflict with some other notional arrangement. Creating new content is problematic, whether it is bias or benign, and pointless when users can already create their own 'pages' with a search.
Limiting the 'page' of search results by author, or any authority, would be a crucial feature.The alternative is to create wikipedia-lite in the portal namespace, not simple and a tangent to the purpose of the site. ”

“ If the readers really need to visit Wikipedia, they can quite easily do it without our assistance too. For these reasons I suggest to set the Wikipedia links rule thus: "Links to Wikipedia are generally discouraged and should be used only very rarely in cases when modern readers may need clarification of the topic and when such clarification is really needed for understanding the work hosted in Wikisource. Creating a topic based or person based portal where possible and linking to it is encouraged instead. Mixing internal links and Wikipedia links in lists of items is explicitely forbidden." ”

“ There exists plenty of discussion about about linking and especially in around the subject matter of moving data from Wikisource to Portal. Public view content sits in main, author and portal namespace, and annotations (this discussion) sit within a simple subset of main namespace; the other spaces are either workspace, or organisational in practice, and there is no general requirement to link to these from works, in fact the practice has been actively removed such links. Why make it more complex than it has to be? ”

“ Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC) @Inductiveload: I think banning plain links and links that take the reader to Wikidata is good. The flip side is permitting it when we have a suitable template. I'm thinking "show page preview + sister links if only WD; link to Wikipedia if an article exists; make sure the user only ends up on Wikidata if they specifically indicate they want to go there". All details subject to discussion and amendment of course, but the basic principle that Wikidata is not a suitable direct destination for a link in our works is sound I think. ”

“ You can now test the new search tool ("CirrusSearch") on all Wikisource, Wiktionary and Wikimedia chapter wikis hosted on Foundation servers. Enable "New search" in your Beta features preferences. There was a bug where notifications were not sent when the signature of the user leaving the message linked to a translated namespace. The problem was fixed in the software and will soon be fixed on Wikimedia sites. You can now use the log-in system for external tools (OAuth) on all Wikimedia wikis that use the unified login. ”

“ The whole point of Wikipedia and Wikisource and Wiki Commons is to have a single reference work with interconnecting links. As I pointed out before, imagine if Wikipedia purged all links to Wikisource. You can always ignore a link, but when you want to know more about something, a link is essential. It is patronizing to assume we know what a reader knows, or doesn't know, so they do not need a link. It is ridiculous to assume what we know today will be common knowledge in 10, 100 or 1,000 years. ”

“ Wikipedia is a dynamic document that uses sources that are usually stable. This sister provides those, when possible. You are correct that translations are dynamic in a wiki environment. The question of course is whether that is terrible or a wonderful opportunity. If proofreading the only way for Wikisource to be a resource for Wikipedia? So again, if I've understood correctly, the single fundamental point that you are emphasizing is about proper scope within a given sister project. That is a point about which reasonable people can both disagree and hopefully find consensus. ”

“ These are:
portal, related_author wikipedia, wikispecies, commons, commonscat, wikiquote are typically applied from Wikidata data through interwiki links, or through linking of main subject (P921) so should only be used to override the default wikinews, wiktionary, wikibooks, wikiversity, meta For portal this would generally be added to the root page of a work, rather than added repeatedly for each subpage. Usage on a subpage would be useful where the subpage alone has a relationship with the specified portal, whereas the parent work does not have that relationship. ”

“ Oppose While I agree with almost everything in the suggested policy, I strongly disagree with permitting links to Wikipedia for the following reasons:
Links are distracting and drive readers away from the work and so should be limited only to advertise other content of Wikisource. Currently it is not possible to distinguish visually internal Wikisource links and external links to other Wikimedia projects. Readers clicking a link on a person’s name usually anticipate that it would take them to an author page and so it should not take them anywhere else. ”

“ I think we should define a common flow for what properties to check. I think in the most part we can not worry about what namespace we're checking from because the properties are prioritized (e.g. if a category has category's main topic (P301) and main subject (P921) defined, we use the former) . So, for any page in any Wikisource NS:
Use sitelink if a direct one exists. For 'Wikidata' sister links, only ever use direct sitelink. ”

“ However, the change surprised a number of people and upset some users of the English Wikipedia who disliked the new arrangement.
Reopening of discussion leads to action Prompted by a question on the Wikitech mailing list, Member Representative Trustee Anthere took advantage of the opportunity to revisit the issue. Modelled on the practice applied to matters like the Swiss domain at www.wikipedia.ch, Anthere commented, "I think portal is the solution chosen for all our projects, so best to stick with it probably." She suggested that a design contest be held for the new portal. ”

“ At the same time it allows for simultaneous cooperative work on related source texts and their Wikisource annotations, and the transclusion of source-texts into the annotated edition. In general, the wiki way at its best is to be inclusive and encourage a wide variety of useful contributions. By the logic that "99% of people are not interested" (from the discussion at the talk page) , then we also should have only Wikipedia and not Wikisource, and we should have wikis in only a handful of languages. ”

“ But we actually find even in the Wikipedia context, which is written by human beings, that there are some websites that even when you type in the right thing and you submit and you get the information you want, you cannot link directly to that. And so someone who is writing something, trying to explain something, and they want to link to a particular statute or a particular regulation or a particular piece of information that has been published by the government, if they are not able to cut and paste that URL and put it into Wikipedia, then even with a human involved it is very frustrating. ”

“ Wikisource’s most evident weaknesses stem from the comparatively small community of users of the site: by any measure, Wikisource is a tiny project compared with Wikipedia or Distributed Proofreaders. [155] The smaller number of users at the site translates into substantially greater time required to complete any given proofreading project and has also limited the number of texts that have been added to the site. Thus, Wikisource remains very far from approaching Professor Gallacher’s ideal of completeness for an open-access repository. ”

“ For any portal, if you think that it looks ugly, we encourage you to fix it, or make it workable. With regard to red links, there are some who revel in adding redlinks to our curated pages, and while I dislike it it isn't necessarily wrong. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC) on wiki search is so bad, i don’t use it. rather a google search is better. maybe a wikidata query by wikisource work with a proofread status, would be better. then you could have a proofread work page, with the wikidata query result. ”

“ Perhaps because our primary purpose is the collection of source texts, the wiki software is ideal; there are far more texts written throughout human history than there are articles on every Wikipedia combined, and it is difficult enough to collect them all without being limited to a few webmasters and a static web site. With the wiki system, any visitor can instantly post a new text, create a translation, adjust an annotation, change a category, update an index, et cetera. ”

“ Now given that Wikipedia is a public enterprise open to the entire public for collaboration and contribution, you may be wondering how wikis or the Wikimedia model may be useful to government. First of all, I want to note generally that there are other ways in which a wiki can be set up usefully, including set ups that do not involve opening the wiki to the general public. You can control access, and a wiki might be useful to an agency that wants to facilitate information sharing up and down the hierarchy for increased vertical sharing. ”

“ They have, for the past several years, built a project that is both technologically and socially ideal to house, transcribe, and view documents on the web in a collaborative environment. As part of the National Archives’ efforts to increase the accessibility and visibility of its holdings, we are offering our high-quality scans of documents to Wikisource for transcription. Wikisource needs more than just documents, though: it needs love. And this is where we each come in. Wikisource is only as good as we make it, all of us together. ”

“ I linked to the Wikipedia article in the text, Benjamin Haydon. Is that a good thing to do? Another editor (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. Work on the philosophy of link locally wherever makes sense, and that is ideally main namespace, author namespace, and portal namespace (see Help:Namespaces) . To wikipedia, if whole article then use wikipedia = Benjamin Haydon in the {{header}}, otherwise judicious linking within articles. Judicious = where the linking adds value or relevance, and specific people often do, though we need to make sure that it is the right person, etc. ”