Talk:Veropedia

message: Please don't delete this; we can at least fix it up and give it its own article.   jj137 (Talk) 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently up for AfD, so you may wish to weigh in there. If it's deleted, it's deleted. Those are the rules and the community gets to judge :) - Alison ❤ 20:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: Despite that this is a poor stub, the fact that so many other third-party journals, including Wired, have covered Veropedia gives the subject enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. I recommend that the article be condensed into one overview section, on account of the lack of content, and that we wait until the site gets beyond its beta incarnation before expanding its article. Thoughts? --Mayor Coffee Bean 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This belongs here, but it's terrible 

message: It needs to be ensured that it's made clear that they're seperate, which it wasn't beforehand, otherwise it could be very misleading -Halo (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not affiliated with [[Wikimedia Foundation]] 

message: Is there a source for all the listed "available languages"? I think the implication is that the encyclopaedia is available in each of those languages, but I can't see any sign that that's true (or verifiable). 80.65.247.216 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Available Languages 

message: I've tidied up the lede a bit but for now I've left in promotional content elsewhere like "The Veropedia editorial community ... is highly geared to quality article writing, seeing involvement in Veropedia as a means to return to the roots of knowledge building by focussing upon articles rather than editorial difficulties." Every company in the world has a committed work force highly geared to quality; well, it does if we're going to copy its own promotional material as factual encyclopaedia content.  If people feel we need to have a description of Veropedia's self-image and objectives then it needs to be neutrally included in a section devoted to that purpose (e.g. a section on the company's ethos), not included elsewhere as statements of fact. 87.254.79.38 (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is somehow related to the above, but the concern I have with the intro is that it may not be quite intelligible to those who don't know Wikipedia, in particular its model. Veropedia basically mirrors content in Wikipedia and I don't think intro does a good job of explaining this in an uncomplicated way. I think the older version was simpler and more readable. Having said this, I do think the article can benefit from detaining the model of Veropedia. While we don't want promotional stuff, the article needs to give a clear and detailed account of Veropedia's goal and how it works. I am writing this here instead of editing the article because I actually don't know much. -- Taku (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, I don't really edit much myself though and wanted to fix what I thought were bigger problems first. When you say you "don't know much" about this subject, I think all the sources are online and none of them are lengthy so if you have time to read them and few preconceptions about Veropedia then you're probably in a great position to edit the article :) 87.254.79.38 (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully these are now fixed. Can you recheck? FT2 (Talk | email) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethos 

message: At the moment the article says "As required by its use of Wikipedia material, all Veropedia content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.", which it cites to the Veropedia home page. The home page, however, says "Content within Yedda Widgets are available under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commerical Share-Alike 2.5 license." Now, I've no idea what a "Yedda Widget" is but that seems to contradict our article text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.79.38 (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing 

message: The Veropedia interwiki link is now working. For example, Veropedia:Second Seminole War creates Veropedia:Second Seminole War, which links to the Veropedia copy of Second Seminole War. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would Wikipedia want to link to Veropedia? Is it safe to assume it'd solely be useful for non-article space? I think real links are much more useful in the context of this article. -Halo (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can imagine both, but suspect it will be mostly used on talk pages, etc. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why would we want this? I'm against spamming Veropedia, a commercial site, on Wikipedia -Halo (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Telling people that another version of the article exists doesn't seem to be spamming it anymore than having links in an "External links" section. Remember, any improvements Veropedia makes can be folded back into our own copy, so making people aware of what their copy looks like can be a good reason for that alone. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon reflection, it would probably be better to use a link on the article page using a format similar to the sister wiki links.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If someone added thousands of "relevant" links to another encyclopedia, I think it'd be regarded as spam. I don't see how Veropedia will be much different, especially as Veropedia merely forks Wikipedia content. I'm strongly against littering Wikipedia with these sorts of commercial links. -Halo (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All that matters if is it passes WP:EL. It makes no difference it they are a non-profit organization or a for-profit one. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, Veropedia doesn't meet WP:EL criteria since Veropedia contains nothing that can't be in Wikipedia. Whatsmore, it could be argued that Veropedia is not a reliable source. -Halo (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think external links have to be? See Links to be considered no. 4. скоморохъ 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you haven't addressed the crux of my point which is that it miserably fails "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" and "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." -Halo (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veropedia interwiki link 

message: It would be useful to have a template for talk pages similar to :
This article has been included on Veropedia:
Veropedia:Second Seminole War
If this looks useful, we can work this up pretty quickly.  Another possibility is to make this a general template to link to any of the wikis in :Category:Websites which use Wikipedia.   --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we want this? I'm against spamming Veropedia, a commercial site, on Wikipedia -Halo (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Telling people that another version of the article exists doesn't seem to be spamming it anymore than having links in an "External links" section. Remember, any improvements Veropedia makes can be folded back into our own copy, so making people aware of what their copy looks like can be a good reason for that alone. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon reflection, it would probably be better to use a link on the article page using a format similar to the sister wiki links.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If someone added thousands of "relevant" links to another encyclopedia, I think it'd be regarded as spam. I don't see how Veropedia will be much different, especially as Veropedia merely forks Wikipedia content. I'm strongly against littering Wikipedia with these sorts of commercial links. -Halo (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All that matters if is it passes WP:EL. It makes no difference it they are a non-profit organization or a for-profit one. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, Veropedia doesn't meet WP:EL criteria since Veropedia contains nothing that can't be in Wikipedia. Whatsmore, it could be argued that Veropedia is not a reliable source. -Halo (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think external links have to be? See Links to be considered no. 4. скоморохъ 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you haven't addressed the crux of my point which is that it miserably fails "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" and "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." -Halo (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template

message: From the second AfD, I kept forgetting to track dowm the Cyberchiefs ref. I finally found the text, it appears to be only a passing mention as one of several examples:
That's the only mention, it's in the only chapter covering wikipedia. Internal ref #24 is to veropedia itself. Obviously long past caring for now, but if we wind up having to go through AfD again, that's what this one is. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cyberchiefs'' mention 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Veropedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710171705/http://blog.edu-cyberpg.com/2007/11/05/What+Is+Veropedia.aspx to http://blog.edu-cyberpg.com/2007/11/05/What+Is+Veropedia.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420070214/http://en.veropedia.com:80/index.php?action=recentchanges to http://en.veropedia.com/index.php?action=recentchanges
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified