On 4/25/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
On 4/25/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21(a)yahoo.com>
----- Original Message ----
From: Philip Welch
> I had a bash at creating a proposal which
would define notability on
> wikipedia as meaning that an article or topic is mentioned in a third
> party reliable source.
I can provide multiple third party reliable sources as evidence that
there is a four way stop on the intersection between Merman Drive and
Terre View Drive in Pullman, Washington. Does that mean that
aforementioned four way stop is worthy of mention in Wikipedia?
Recalling Jimbo's "Ten Things That Should Be Free"
in particular number 7: Free the Maps!
I would say absolute yes that information should be in a Wikimedia project that
seamlessly integrates into Wikipedia.
Perhaps, but a map is not an encyclopedia. It should all be free, but
not everything should necesserilly be put in this particular project.
The free encyclopedia, the free dictionary, the free news reports, the free
media repositry, the free documents and quotes repositries, the free textbooks,
the free species directory, <redlink>the free thesaurus</redlink> and
<redlink>the free atlas</redlink>
are all different sides of the same coin. With the technology provided by the Web
we should be mixing and integrating these much much more than we are.
It is a great shame that there is very little cross-project co-operation.
A further frustrating aspect of a large community directing a project is that
it is very conservative and keen to maintain the status quo.
Wikimaps sadly isn't really practicle. A lot of work goes into makeing
a map and a lot of that has to be done on the ground. If you want free
maps you may just have to wait for the copyright on OS maps and the
like to expire and then work from those.
Why is that as a community we haven't been
badgering the board to do
anything dramatic since Wikinews was set up /18/ months ago.
Because wikiversity din't really get the support some people were expecting.