Forum:Wikipedia content use

Ok, I just enabled interwiki transclusion with Wikipedia. Now, we need to decide whether we should use interwiki transclusion to include the full HTML of Wikipedia articles in Lexipedium as a placeholder until editors write our own versions or whether we should create some sort of create box that imports the wikicode that will need to be edited and stripped down manually. Given the difficulty of getting copied wikicode from Wikipedia to look like a presentable article, I propose making a template and boilerplate that transcludes Wikipedia articles from HTML with a comment in the edit source text saying that editors should start their own article and that WP is just a placeholder. Using placeholder embedded articles should help generate content to get us past the chicken-egg problem that faces new wikis. DondreKhan (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2014 (EDT)
 * That sounds like a good idea, though this should also denote where the content originated from for attribution purposes (such as citing the URL in a commented out line). Arcane (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Substituted wikitext would include the attribution template, so there would still be attribution either way. Are you suggesting that it's possible to include attribution in the source code only?  I'd find that surprising since CC isn't a software license.  It would avoid people thinking that the page is automatically unreliable because it includes text from Wikipedia, even if it has been reviewed.  I think establishing quality would overcome that though.  Lieutenant S. Reznov (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
 * HTML transclusion seems to truncate at a certain length. I'll see if I can fix that.  The other problem with it is that all links will go to Wikipedia; we might be able to change that with JavaScript.  Given the endless problems of template dependency hell that would arise from source transclusion, HTML is really the only viable option outside of using interwiki transclusion to transplant the source code into the wiki.  I say HTML, fix truncation, and use JavaScript to change links to stay here rather than go to Wikipedia.  Lieutenant S. Reznov (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Arcane (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * The truncation seems like a random error, and it seems to happen less. I don't think it's really an issue.  Figuring out a way to use JavaScript to rewrite the links internally from transclusion will be a big help to the wiki.
 * We should decide whether to keep the copied articles we have or transclude them. I'm going to clear and transclude them because it will be simpler than trying to fix the formatting.  Lieutenant S. Reznov (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I just accepted the revision for the page Schutzstaffel, which promptly fixed the truncation problem upon refresh. The problem is also intermittent, but we should make sure that we approve the revisions for transcluded pages since that might be a cause of the problem.  Just set it as spot checked and acceptable like we do with the main page.  Also set the summary as "Approving Wikipedia transclusion"  DondreKhan (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Good plan. It looks like you fixed the problem.  It also looks like you fixed the messed up formatting errors.  I'm going to work on the JavaScript domain rewrite so that article links will remain internal.  From there we can simply hop around from link to link and copy and paste the transclusion template, then approve the revision.  With only several minutes effort, each user can generate 20 or so pages each day.  At that rate it would take 50 days to get to 1,000 articles, which would be a good start.  I'm sure we could have a bot automate that to get thousands of articles pretty quickly.  We could use a web crawling bot to generate a list of internal links on pages and take the pages names from them, then manually review them to make sure they're valid historical articles, and have the bot generate them with the transclusion template.  The bot would need to automatically have approved edits, as it would generate a massive mess otherwise.  We could give bots automatically approved revisions since they would only be for formatting and reverting unproductive edits. Lieutenant S., Master of Lexipedium (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2014 (EDT)