Interwiki what?

As you may or may not know, Davis wiki is not the only wiki on the Internet. The orginial wiki was created by Ward Cunningham, at and is called the WikiWikiWeb also see DavisWiki Entry. It is esentially a website about programing and patterns (yes, patterns), however, it has a great deal of discussion about Wiki Ethics.

A much larger site, Wikipedia, is an online wiki-encyclopedia of everything. Rather than creating standard links to c2 and wikipedia pages, you can create interwiki links like such



[wiki:WikiPedia:Poop A page about poop]

will give you this

A page about poop

If you click on the link, you will be taken to the Wikipedia's page on Poop.

Here's how it works

  • the [] indicates that what you are typing is a link.
  • the wiki: indicates that you are creating a interwiki link regardless of what wiki you're linking to.
  • this can be followed by any of the names in the below "List of Interwiki places"
  • then of course you follow with the page name
    • A word on page names: always uses CamelCasingToIndicateSpacesBetweenWords. Wikipedia_is_a_big_fan_of_the_underscore. So [wiki:Wiki:APageInTheWiki] [wiki:WikiPedia:A_Page_In_The_Wiki].
    • If you're really picky and anal like me then you'll want to link to non-redirected pages. For example Wikipedia:Vacaville redirects to Wikipedia:Vacaville,_California but doesn't change the URL, you have to take the page name and add the underscores yourself.
  • add a space, then type the optional description that you would like to appear with the link.

List of Interwiki places

See the InterWiki Map!

If you want to add a wiki to this list, follow the format on Interwiki Map.

Why Bother?

Well, for one, you get this cool looking interwiki link icon that lets people know they're going to a wiki and not some random page. Passing your mouse over the link tells you which wiki it links to. Furthermore, it's good for the connectivity of the wiki as a whole, the theory being that indiviual wikis can all link off each other. Also, they gave ArlenAbraham the oppurtunity to accumulate a shitload of edits for changing like 80% of the outgoing links on the wiki.

So when do I use this?

  • Suggestion to whoever deals with such things: Comments created with the comment dialog box probably should be automatically be interwiki links, otherwise eventually there will be a lot of confusion about who is from where and seemingly dead links. — EfremRensi

Further Reading

The Wikipedia is an excellent resource for things that we don't necessairily talk about here. It also provides alternate explanations, Instant-Runoff Voting for example, is something that is discussed indepth here at DavisWiki, but DavisWiki cites the wikipedia page as further reading.

Non-Davis topics

The Videogaming page is an excellent example of wasted effort. Why go through the trouble of writing a history of the videogaming industry when a much better version already exists on the Wikipedia? There's no need to reinvent the wheel, merely say, for a complete history of the videogame industry, see Wikipedia entry.

  • Topics aren't non-Davis. However content might inappropriately be. I may be in the small minority here (or alone, even), but I think there is virtually no entry topic that should be off limits from DavisWiki. I think of the DavisWiki as an encyclopedia of things in the world from a Davis perspective. And even if pages start off genericly, they usually end up very davis-specific. I bet if someone did entries on the Sun, Moon, Stars, etc., they could all have a uniquely davis-specific flavor. I think there may be some reason to include wikipedia links in the footer— hell, maybe this can be automatically generated if a wikipedia page one exists?? But nothing should inspire someone to say, "How does this topic relate to Davis?" and respond by deleting the page. Instead that same person should try and make the page relevant to Davis. Or at least provide the headings. But that's just my "unique" perspective. -JaimeRaba
  • I get tired of having to defend a few pages I wrote (usually from the same handful of people, over and over again). I also find it OFFENSIVE to call what I wrote "wasted effort" (I get to choose what effort I want I want to put into articles). Just because a book exists in the Library of Congress doesn't mean it doesn't belong in your local library. Especially when it is obvious that it is an interest to others in the community (just read the comments). I go further into this on my user page under "Grrr...". -HollywoOd


Because the Wikipedia is edited and viewed by thousands of people each day, some people claim it is more authoritative than something like DavisWiki. Niche Wikis like DavisWiki tend to be updated with specifics (find the suppliers of papasan chairs in Davis on Wikipedia or the hours of Thai Bistro) and have local information updated significantly more quickly. The accuracy of Wikipedia, like any Wiki, can be considered dubious - tests involving insertion of incorrect data shows that it does not get fixed promptly, and is thus subject to subtle trolling.


JabberWokky maintains that having a linkfest to Wikipedia is not necessarily a positive thing - Wikipedia's goals and methods are very different than DavisWiki. As a result, linking to Wiki for things like DDR would prevent the creation of the current page... which lists local notable players, local groups that hold local tournaments, and a chunk of Davis specific information - including locations of game machines. DDR itself has little to do with Davis and thus would be a "good" thing to link to Wikipedia... and in doing so, you decrease the local content hosted here and maintained by Davis focused editors.

A very good example of "what should have been linked to Wikipedia" are the Flora pages - dozens of pages listing local plantlife. But by *not* linking to the Wikipedia entries, we have created pages that contain more information (or more relevant information) than the Wikipedia entries. In many cases, the local DavisWiki entries list things like what varieties are common locally and where to buy them locally. There was "no reason" to create the entries by the "Interwiki link philosophy"... Wikipedia has "perfectly good" information... but by *not* linking, we have increased the value of the local Wiki greatly.

Although, there is some value to the OnceAndOnlyOnce philosophy. - The Labster

  • There is also quite a bit of reality to the three precepts of "Competition, Focus and Satisfaction". Following your logic, all entries on DavisWiki should be copied to Wikipedia and DavisWiki shut down. Seeing pages that could be made here blocked by the "easy way out" of linking to Wikipedia (even when the Wikipedia entry lacks relevance like Richard_Avedon versus Richard Avedon) makes me seriously question the future of this site. You've opened a Wal*Mart in the Wiki, where everything is cheaper, even if it's shoddy and removes the ability of locals to participate in their own community. — JabberWokky
    • No, no, Ben & Jerry's is Wal*Mart. Silly. I think local information is best described here, but we shouldn't try to grow to become encyclopedic on things that don't relate to Davis very much. If articles are covered well on the wikipedia, I think we just need a paragraph of introduction, how it relates to Davis, and a link to the wikipedia for more information. I don't think we need to refer there for things that are profoundly Davis like, say, Judy Sakaki. But I've never tried to define discordianism on this website. (Besides the rest of them wouldn't agree with me — we Discordians must stick apart!) I never claimed it was my logic, I just claimed the philosophy had some value. —BrentLaabs