Ray Cherry wrote:
> Do you think that WikiSource would be the correct situation for the 'Conceptionary'?
>
> The document in it's current from does present the source of the term, and then a proposal for its possible evolution into a system for overcoming translation difficulties with the language-independent organisation of human ideas/concepts within a public-access network database.
>
> This is the source text of the Conceptionary project.
>
> Would you be willing to maintain it at WikiSource?
>
>Looking forward to your reply.
>
>
No.
This is not the interpretation of "source text" that we would consider
applicable at Wikisource. Although we do include some recent material
that is subject to GFDL licensing, most of the material has already
passed into the public domain.
It is understandable that your material represents the original source
for the "Conceptionary" project, but it is this very fact of being
modern original research that makes it unsuitable for WikiSource.
I would continue to recommend that WikiBooks would be the appropriate
place for this. However, since my own participation in that project has
never been more than marginal, I cannot presume what their policies
might be on this matter.
I believe that there is a place in the world for such original ideas,
and I sympathize with your difficulties in finding exposure for them.
It is all the more difficult at a time when each of us has other
priorities which demand an ever-increasin portion of available time.
Ray Saintonge (Eclecticology)
PS: I would appreciate it if someone who is more involved wih WikiBooks
would comment from that perspective. -Ec