On 10/18/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/18/05, Phil Boswell
<phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
I would hate for an opportunity like this, of
getting something really
useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.
I don't see how it's going to be lost, is there another free
encyclopedia that they'll partner with if we don't slather wikipedia
with externals to them?
I suspect that, like myself, many people have a hard time getting
excited about filling up wikipedia with more externals rather than
enhancing the value of Wikipedia directly.
Geodata in articles about subjects which have a definite location
belongs in Wikipedia, that much is clear. I don't think its at all
clear that we need to undertake a large effort to integrate with a
third party site which is providing a service we should ultimately
provide ourselves.
I agree. I hate to pour cold water on what would be very cool and
potentially useful.
But if you've used Placeopedia, you'll notice it's not wiki.
While you can place a "pin" on their map and link to a Wikipedia
article, you cannot directly change another person's contribution if
you have an issue with it. You have to fill out a form and an
alternate location which gets submitted. The process thereafter is
unknown.
Who are the folks mediating that decision? Suddenly we would have
Wikipedia pointing (en mass) to a map system controlled by a single
person/entity. There is not much information on their site, other than
to mail "team(a)placeopedia.com." The "mysociety.org" site which
sponsors it points to Tom Steinberg as the project leader.
But given Wikipedia's tradition of openess and transparency, a strong
link to Placeopedia, the way it operates now would seem to be rather
incompatible with that idea.
-Andrew