In the real world, not all reference books are encyclopedias. That's not just because encyclopedias are "paper. "Great Books of the Western World" is not the same thing as "The Encyclopaedia Britannica," just as Wikisource is not the same thing as Wikipedia.
And "The Encyclopedia of Chicago," "The Star Trek Encyclopedia," and "Oh, Yuck: The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty" are not part of any comprehensive encyclopedia either, nor should they be.
Forks are not intrinsically evil; as I've always understood it, the ability to produce forks is supposed to be one of the _strengths_ of the GFDL and other free licenses.
On 11/14/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
Forks are not intrinsically evil; as I've always understood it, the ability to produce forks is supposed to be one of the _strengths_ of the GFDL and other free licenses.
The best thing being, of course, that we can have the stuff back when they're done with it. ;=)
Sam
From: Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com
On 11/14/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
Forks are not intrinsically evil; as I've always understood it, the
ability
to produce forks is supposed to be one of the _strengths_ of the GFDL
and
other free licenses.
The best thing being, of course, that we can have the stuff back when they're done with it. ;=)
Assuming it's in a form that conforms with our polices...
Jay.
From: dpbsmith@verizon.net
In the real world, not all reference books are encyclopedias. That's not just because encyclopedias are "paper. "Great Books of the Western World" is not the same thing as "The Encyclopaedia Britannica," just as Wikisource is not the same thing as Wikipedia.
And "The Encyclopedia of Chicago," "The Star Trek Encyclopedia," and "Oh, Yuck: The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty" are not part of any comprehensive encyclopedia either, nor should they be.
Forks are not intrinsically evil; as I've always understood it, the ability to produce forks is supposed to be one of the _strengths_ of the GFDL and other free licenses.
Amen.
Jay.
On 11/14/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
Forks are not intrinsically evil; as I've always understood it, the ability to produce forks is supposed to be one of the _strengths_ of the GFDL and other free licenses.
Except that GFDL and CC tend not to interchangerble.
-- geni
Sure, but wikipedia succeeds where forks like Wikinfo didn't (What's Wikinfo? Exactly.) for the same reason that betamax and Ebay's competitors failed: the more people use a particular format or site, the more useful that site becomes, the more people want to use it.
Why shouldn't Wikipedia have an exhaustive entry on the Heavy Metal Umlaut? It's not like it's taking up space that we can't spare; hard drives are cheap.
There might be a time when forks will work well, but that'll be several years from now, when the user base is much bigger and there are better sofware interfaces and visualizations to sort through the differences between the forks.
Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
On 11/14/05, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but wikipedia succeeds where forks like Wikinfo didn't (What's Wikinfo? Exactly.) for the same reason that betamax and Ebay's competitors failed: the more people use a particular format or site, the more useful that site becomes, the more people want to use it.
Why shouldn't Wikipedia have an exhaustive entry on the Heavy Metal Umlaut? It's not like it's taking up space that we can't spare; hard drives are cheap.
There might be a time when forks will work well, but that'll be several years from now, when the user base is much bigger and there are better sofware interfaces and visualizations to sort through the differences between the forks.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page
I think that dissproves your claim.
-- geni
On 11/14/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page
I think that dissproves your claim.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what claim did it disprove and how?
Sam
On 11/14/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page
I think that dissproves your claim.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what claim did it disprove and how?
Sam
Memory alpha appears to be working quite well. Comixpedia may or may not take off.
For those that don't like NPOV there is:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Main_Page
-- geni
On 11/14/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There might be a time when forks will work well, but that'll be several years from now, when the user base is much bigger and there are better sofware interfaces and visualizations to sort through the differences between the forks.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page I think that dissproves your claim.
As I've said before (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-September/028369.html), Memory Alpha was never a fork of Wikipedia. This idea was derived from the Star Trek Encyclopedia which predates Wikipedia by over 7 years. It is under an incompatible license, which should mean that none of the content in MA was even taken from Wikipedia. Please stop assuming every other project that uses MediaWiki must be a fork of Wikipedia since it really isn't true.
Angela.
On 11/14/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
[Memory Alpha] is under an incompatible license, which should mean that none of the content in MA was even taken from Wikipedia.
I was browsing Memory Alpha today and read the notice "The main text of this synopsis is based on the corresponding Wikipedia article" at the bottom of http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Conspiracy.
But I don't know whether "based on" means "taken from" or not
TD
On 15/11/05, Taco Deposit tacodeposit@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
[Memory Alpha] is under an incompatible license, which should mean that none of the content in MA was even taken from Wikipedia.
I was browsing Memory Alpha today and read the notice "The main text of this synopsis is based on the corresponding Wikipedia article" at the bottom of http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Conspiracy.
But I don't know whether "based on" means "taken from" or not
Checking the histories, the originals were the same through the cunning contrivance of the original author of the text having added it to Wikipedia, and then about a week or two later to Memory Alpha.
This is, of course, perfectly legitimate; I can put something on Wikipedia which is entirely my own work, thus licensing it under the GFDL, and then publish another version somewhere else under a different license; they're not AIUI exclusive.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 11/14/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
And "The Encyclopedia of Chicago," "The Star Trek Encyclopedia," and "Oh, Yuck: The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty" are not part of any comprehensive encyclopedia either, nor should they be.
I only half-agree here. The single focus of these works should not be in Wikipedia in terms of selection and treatment, but there is no reason why many of the subjects covered in these could not be in Wikipedia.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 11/14/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
And "The Encyclopedia of Chicago," "The Star Trek Encyclopedia," and "Oh, Yuck: The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty" are not part of any comprehensive encyclopedia either, nor should they be.
I only half-agree here. The single focus of these works should not be in Wikipedia in terms of selection and treatment, but there is no reason why many of the subjects covered in these could not be in Wikipedia.
I agree---I don't necessarily think a million Pokemon pages are the most useful thing on Wikipedia, but I don't see why it *hurts* anything to have them either. I do think a lot of the reason for specialized encyclopedias doesn't apply to Wikipedia: 1) They tend to be produced by different, specialized companies; and 2) They have space constraints. Wikiprojects can mimic (1) without actually forking, and (2) doesn't apply.
-Mark
On 11/14/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I agree---I don't necessarily think a million Pokemon pages are the most useful thing on Wikipedia, but I don't see why it *hurts* anything to have them either.
Considering the world wide profile of pokemon I think your example sucks.
I do think a lot of the reason for specialized encyclopedias doesn't apply to Wikipedia: 1) They tend to be produced by different, specialized companies; and 2) They have space constraints. Wikiprojects can mimic (1) without actually forking, and (2) doesn't apply.
-Mark
Forks allow people with a common interest to work quitely on a project sorounded only by those who share their interests. For some this enviroment may be more productive.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 11/14/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I agree---I don't necessarily think a million Pokemon pages are the most useful thing on Wikipedia, but I don't see why it *hurts* anything to have them either.
Considering the world wide profile of pokemon I think your example sucks.
But there is no requirement on Wikipedia that there be a "world wide profile" for our topics. Plenty of our topics, especially on scientific subjects, are interesting only to a handful of specialists. There's no reason not to have these.
-Mark
On 11/14/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
geni wrote:
On 11/14/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I agree---I don't necessarily think a million Pokemon pages are the most useful thing on Wikipedia, but I don't see why it *hurts* anything to have them either.
Considering the world wide profile of pokemon I think your example sucks.
But there is no requirement on Wikipedia that there be a "world wide profile" for our topics. Plenty of our topics, especially on scientific subjects, are interesting only to a handful of specialists. There's no reason not to have these.
-Mark
Sure but they are a walkover to verify for the most part.
-- geni
OK, I stand corrected. But I do think instances like Star Trek, which have a huge obsessed fan base, are the exception rather than the rule.
Also, I don't think the star trek and kos wikis are technically forks, even if they do use mediawiki.
Problem 1: I think one of the worst problems with this is that "obsessed fans" think every single bit of trivia needs to be covered in its own article. Wikipedia works best of its information is structured and thus put in larger articles with context.
Problem 2: People try to slip in self-promotion and advertising for bands, forums, books and scores of other things which either cannot be expanded into a full article or are simply not encyclopedic material.
Problem 3: People get problem 1 and 2 mixed up. Not every trivial detail needs deletion, a lot can be merged or put in a sister project.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, so not every single bit of information gets in. We are first and formost an encyclopedia, not a data dump.
--Mgm
On 11/14/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, so not every single bit of information gets in. We are first and formost an encyclopedia, not a data dump.
I agree (with the above quoted, and the part trimmed away).
What should differentiate Wikipedia from a specialised Wiki is (a) our standards for NPOV, NOR, attribution, etc etc and (b) our intended audience.
A specialised Wiki - e.g. Memory Alpha - can assume a different audience than we do. From what I've read of their (often very good) content, they assume an audience of Star Trek fans.
They can also have different content policies than we do - e.g. dkosopedia, where bias is fine and NPOV is not a policy.
What I have a problem with is the (stated or unstated) view that 'if we allow articles on topic X, how will anyone take us seriously as an encyclopedia?'
I don't see anything wrong with Wikipedia having a very well-written coverage of Pokemon, for example. Written for a general audience, comprehensive, NPOV, properly sourced, with no copyright violations - it would be quite worthwhile.
We should not be embarassed by the wide variety of topics we cover. We should only be embarassed of BAD ARTICLES.
-Matt
On 11/14/05, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I don't think the star trek and kos wikis are technically forks, even if they do use mediawiki.
This is correct. Makeing a true fork is a sucidle move for a startup wiki since the number of articles that already exist is overwelming.
-- geni
On 11/14/05, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I stand corrected. But I do think instances like Star Trek, which have a huge obsessed fan base, are the exception rather than the rule.
In time things with smaller fan bases will be able to take off. Have a look around wikicites sometime some of it makes interesting reading.
-- geni