--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)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