--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Marco Krohn wrote:
The proposed project "wikispecies" will have a huge overlap with existing Wikipedia articles. Therefore using the term sister-project is IMHO wrong, and calling it a "partial fork" is much closer to reality.
Just to clarify, I think that wikispecies is not overlapping with the encyclopedia in any significant way, that it is not a fork, that it is a perfectly appropriate use of our resources, and that this discussion should end pretty soon.
How the hell is it not a fork?! Have you been reading this discussion? Esp important has been talk about how to incorporate the database functions into MediaWiki so that everything Wikispecies-type functions could be performed. Use of the upcoming Wikimedia Commons to store such data was also a great idea.
A species database is just a different kind of reference work than a general interest encyclopedia. This is not materially different from efforts at wikibooks, wiktionary, etc., to generate other kinds of reference works.
None of the data proposed to go into this fork could not be incorporated into existing Wikimedia projects.
By supporting Benedikt Mandl's proposal in-house, rather than being persnickity and forcing him to go outside for support, we guarantee such things as long-term software and content compatibility, etc.
If in-house means within existing projects, then yes I agree.
When fully developed, a wikispecies directory will be a delightful resource work as a standalone *and* a nice foundation for *some* encyclopedia articles. But the two are not identical.
Our current category system could be extended to create such a directory *within* Wikipedia. Dividing our biology contributor base between two separate projects that have a great deal of overlap is a HUGE mistake.
-- Daniel
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush