Talk:LocalWiki

Perhaps it would be good to link wiki url names to their LocalWiki sites, for example: 

* {{flagicon|USA}} [[Abingdon, Virginia]] (''[[LocalWiki:abingdon|abingdon]]'')

produces

Jonpatterns (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LocalWiki. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LocalWiki. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed flag

I added this flag and I have struggled to find any coverage of the organization. The most recent article about LocalWiki according to the website: https://localwiki.org/main/Press_Mentions says 2015, but the NYT article never mentions LocalWiki and only 2 of the 2014 articles seemed notable enough to include. Anyone know of any more recent coverage? Superb Owl (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's some secondary coverage of the Oakland Wiki in 2022. As far as I understand, LocalWiki has been basically run by one person for at least ten years, and seems to not have been a registered nonprofit for at least that long as well - you can search for "LocalWiki" in the CA Registry of Charitable Trusts to see materials from 2011-2012 and 2015.
Re this removal, what do you mean by "fails notability test"? Notability doesn't apply to content within an article (WP:NOTEWORTHY). Dreamyshade (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing that! I added it to the article in a new Oakland subsection.
That makes sense that it seems to be on a shoestring given how little coverage or updates the website is showing.
That removal only links to three blog posts and a non-notable neighborhood newspaper without its own Wikipedia article and a student news publication (which I am reusing in the Oakland section now) - maybe 'better sources needed' would be a better reason Superb Owl (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret the criteria for small-time sources as generally WP:DUE, and WP:V. The material in the article was brief, which helps with due weight, and the sources seem reasonable enough to verify brief factual claims:
Dreamyshade (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're in 2026 and those blog posts and neighborhood publications are from over a decade ago, I do not think use of any of these borderline sources are still WP:DUE anymore. Superb Owl (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Curious why recency would matter for evaluating due weight? The core question for DUE is whether coverage in the article is roughly in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. Do you mean that these items just don't seem important enough to include in the article? Dreamyshade (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources aren't notable enough and what was cited from them also wasn't important enough to include. Seems like excessive detail given the level of notability of the project today is less than the level of notability of the project a decade ago Superb Owl (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the publisher (the newspaper, nonprofit, etc.) isn't part of the criteria for evaluating whether a citation is WP:RS though? It sounds like your main concern is WP:EXCESSDETAIL, which I understand. But verifiable brief mentions of early efforts help show what the org used its sizable grant for, which a reader could reasonably be curious about. This material is also part of crafting a meaningful and coherent article on this topic as a whole: showing that LocalWiki tried pretty hard to take off, but didn't, except in a few places.
I'd say that the notability of the subject (LocalWiki) hasn't decreased over the past ten years - the amount of secondary coverage has not decreased over the past ten years - but Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability have increased. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful for understanding better where you're coming from in terms of why mentioning those communities is part of the Local Wiki story (and very helpful to have your insider perspective). I still strongly prefer more independent sources before inclusion (couldn't find anything in Wikipedia Library). Superb Owl (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting larger story to weave into this article about foundation funding trends between 2005-2015 (Nieman Foundation for Journalism#Nieman Lab; Knight Foundation#21st century), including hyperlocals (Category:Hyperlocal media) and citizen journalism. This 2021 paper has helpful context, although it doesn't mention LocalWiki.
Some potential additional sources:
  • Cohen, Noam (2010-06-17). "Knight Foundation Hands Out Grants to 12 Groups, but Not WikiLeaks". Media Decoder Blog. New York Times. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  • Beckett, Lois (October 6, 2010). "Trust, mobile, and money: New focal points (and hints for applicants) for the new Knight News Challenge". Nieman Lab. Retrieved 11 May 2026.
  • Tong, Anna (2010-06-17). "Davis' Wiki site will be a model for others". The Sacramento Bee. p. 20. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  • Herbert Joyner, Liz (2012-06-21). "Village Square offers Wiki summer camp". Tallahassee Democrat. pp. E3. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  • Bracken, John (2013). "The Bigger Picture: Ten Lessons for Taking Open Government Further". In Goldstein, Brett (ed.). Beyond Transparency: Open Data and the Future of Civic Innovation. Code for America Press. ISBN 978-0-615-88908-5.
  • Whitaker, Christopher (2014-11-05). "The Launch of Chicago Localwiki". Smart Chicago Collaborative. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  • Artz, Matthew (2014-01-17). "Website aims to record everything about Oakland". East Bay Times. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  • Stanton, Ryan (2018-08-10). "Using Ann Arbor's logo without city OK now carries up to $10K penalty". mlive. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  • Stanton, Ryan (2018-11-12). "ACLU says new Ann Arbor ordinance infringes on free speech rights". mlive. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
  • Stanton, Ryan (2019-01-24). "Ann Arbor OKs changes to controversial city seal and flag ordinance". mlive. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
Newspapers.com also has evidence that the Raleigh article was in print.
Also, realized that searching the CA registry of corporations for "LocalWiki" is informative (scroll down to search by keyword) - initial filing date 2008, inactive as of 2018. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This dissertation from 2024 could be a helpful citation for the big picture: "...it is complicated and challenging for non-profit UGC platforms to thrive in today’s rapidly evolving tech environment and with varied user demographics. Indeed, only a few of them have succeeded, while others like LocalWiki have been struggling to be viable."
More potential sources:
Dreamyshade (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those two dissertations were really helpful! Exactly the kind of big-picture overview that this article was needing. The other local sources might be able to be worked-in but given how old they are or how the Ann Arbor controversy doesn't seem that important/relevant for this article, I'm probably not going to add them. The article seems to be at about the right size Superb Owl (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamyshade, I now think this article with your additions has excessive detail and was surprised by the softening of the analysis of the thesis. I restored the original wording of the thesis unless there's a reason to read more between the lines that I am not seeing. Superb Owl (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Directly quoting the thesis, out of context, makes the statement too strong because the thesis isn't really evaluating the success or viability of LocalWiki as a whole - it's basically just comparing the level of activity on LocalWiki to Wikipedia. For example, the thesis doesn't seem to analyze whether LocalWiki's funding level is sustainable.
Here's another report I found with details about LocalWiki (pages 63-64, 66). Since there's a fair bit of secondary coverage, it seems reasonable to me to include material from the available secondary coverage. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The author is also comparing LocalWiki to its stated goal of hosting the entire world's local knowledge but only achieving 100,000 pages in its first two decades. We also don't know what else the author is referring to about its finances, technical debt, volunteer community, etc.
I have come around to the idea of airing on the side of overinclusion for the reliable local sources for the short term with the idea that it might become excessive detail before too long. Superb Owl (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After a closer look, there are two lower-quality sources that cite stated goals of the groups, which seems like excessive detail and are flagged inline. Superb Owl (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled why the Midtown Raleigh News source (also available here) seems less reliable than any other local news publication? Is the issue that it's an interview-style article? Dreamyshade (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Registry of Corporations link you found for CA, it was incorporated as the nonprofit Wikispot in 2008, name changed to LocalWiki in 2014 and then stopped paying its $20 fee to maintain its nonprofit status and was suspended by 2016 and had its status suspended permanently on April 2, 2018. Not sure how to cite it without it being WP:OR but there seems to be no formal organization since then for LocalWiki Superb Owl (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the GitHub has not been updated in 11 years, which seems quite concerning from a security standpoint Superb Owl (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.