On 0, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> scribbled:
Keith Old wrote:
>http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/08/ap3699046.html
>
>In a whale-sized project, the world's scientists plan to compile
everything
>they know about all of Earth's 1.8
million known species and put it all
on
>one Web site, open to everyone.
>
>The effort, called the Encyclopedia of Life, will include species
>descriptions, pictures, maps, videos, sound, sightings by amateurs, and
>links to entire genomes and scientific journal papers. Its first pages
of
>information will be shown Wednesday in
Washington where the massive
effort
>is being announced by some of the world's
leading institutions. The
project
>will take about 10 years to finish.
>
>Two foundations have given $12.5 million to pay for the first 2 1/2
years of
the
massive effort, but it will be free and accessible to everyone.
I know of one organization that could have done just as well or better
for a fraction of the price. :-)
Ec
That's actually a good question. Somone mentioned, I think, that Erik
might know why they aren't basing it off WikiSpecies (which I'd heard was
remarkably underappreciated and comprehensive).
If they don't have any specific ideological objections, I do hope they use
WikiSpecies's database - it always distresses me when I see things like
Project Gutenberg and WikiSource: they're doing such similar things, and
even with the duplication of work and other inefficiencies, they're already
doing great work. Imagine what they could do after they merged!
--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.
they all list "Wikipedia" as a source, along with others.
Presumably, if they're willing to use Wikipedia, they'd be willing to use
Wikispecies. (Also, if they mean "source" in the "we took text from
there"
way, then presumably the contents of the Encyclopedia of Earth will need to
be under the GFDL). As someone else noted in this thread, there's been a lot
of other efforts to build biodiversity databases over the years. One can
only hope that this new project will build on existing attempts..
Also, I'm intrigued by the "novice-expert" slider that is visible on the
demonstration pages, which apparently "Customizes EOL to suit different
categories of users. A primary school student might only see the vernacular
name of the organism; more advanced students might see the vernacular name,
the Latin Name, and nomenclatural and associated information."
I wish we had that for Wikipedia... "ten page biography of famous scientist
too much to digest? Here, try the leading paragraph and infobox version."
Maybe we could make a cruft/non-cruft slider as well, so those articles
falling below one's cruft threshold would disappear....
-- phoebe