Wikipedia talk:Walled garden
Moved to project space
This was not appropriate for mainspace, as an article on a wiki matter of peripheral importance and with no incoming links from other articles. A general article on walled gardens on the web might be possible, but I haven't created one as this is totally unreferenced and smells like original research. --kingboyk 15:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
WP itself a walled garden?
I notice that there is a strong tendancy not to have direct links to outside sites, especially within articles. Think about how different this is though from other websites you go to that have lots of links moving on and off their span of control. but we tend to restrict it to the references and sometimes a tiny section of external links, but not just normal links in context like with a wikilink. and sometimes we don't even have the best page on something. Not saying this is wrong, just something that has some tradeoff.TCO (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- You have a point there.. Even MOS:APPENDIX recommends the placement of the See also section above all other appendices containing external links in order to keep readers 'within' Wikipedia as they progress to the links at the end of an article. But I disagree that this is different from other websites.. I would think that any website has a vested interest in keeping viewers at their site or at least to begin browsing at their site, whether the purpose be to provide encyclopedic educational content, or to be a portal of entertaining links towards other sites, but I think this is probably a discussion for a forum separate from the topic of this type of walled garden scenario anyways. -- œ™ 10:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Essay being misused
While this essay is correct, it is so vague it is being used to claim that a number of Biographies from a group of scholars who associate through several of the same organizations are themselves a "walled garden" even though they are at different universities, have different specialities, etc. etc. They keep treating this essay as policy. See this talk page discussion Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Two_.22Austrian_economist.22_sources_personally_connected_to_Rothbard. This essay is being used as an excuse to delete WP:RS material not only from these individuals but from outside academics and insert WP:OR material.
However, these editors think it is perfectly find to use material from members of the alleged walled garden walled garden if they are good for criticizing the individual or making the point the editors want to make. Just one of multiple examples I could give you is here: Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Replacing_WP:RS_sourcing_with_personal_WP:OR. So I think we need to add some text disabusing these editors of this false idea. User:Carolmooredc 05:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I see my Bold attempt to start discussion was reverted here by a user who doesn't understand this is an essay, not policy. Anyway, will bring editors from elsewheres if don't get response here from people who understand it's an essay. User:Carolmooredc 22:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)