Ray Saintonge wrote:
>I can see how the misinterpretation of
>"Commons" that you cite might arise , but the image that it evoked from
>me was quite different, and is based on a meaning of "Commons" that has
>been around for much longer: the town square where everyone comes
>together to share what unites them.
>
Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of course.
But why invite confusion, especially if we include things under CC
licenses, as Erik's proposal would allow? Better to have a distinct name
that causes no misunderstandings. Since the commons is land for the use
of the whole community, how about the equivalent in water? i.e.
"Wikimedia Reservoir". The original sense of "source" is water-based, too.
>> I'm not terribly familiar with the activity on
>> Wikisource, but if Ec thinks the commons project would just compete
>> with it, he's in a good position to know. Why should we dissipate our
>> energy on setting up duelling projects?
>
>"Compete" does not exactly describe my concern. It's more a clash of
>visions.
>
(Ray Saintonge also wrote:)
> Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor of
> Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a competitor
> of Project Sourceberg.
This statement from your previous post was part of the reason I
expressed myself as I did. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
>Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.
>
This I would wholeheartedly endorse. For me personally, and I know of
others, the biggest thing that inhibits participating in multiple
Wikimedia projects is the nuisance (mixed with a little laziness) of
having to log in separately to each one.
--Michael Snow