Lars Aronsson a écrit:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
essentially what a wikispecies should look like, I guess. I guess a
w-species would focus more on the biology, history, genealogy, genetics, or
what, so that it's different from the w-pedia?
All that should be covered in the Wikipedia article.
My impression is that Wikispecies' goal is to catalog *every* existing
(and extinct?) species. We're talking about, what, hundred thousands
of articles. This is similar to documenting every town and village,
no matter what the size, and such attempts have historically not been
appreciated within Wikipedia. This is why I think Wikispecies should
be developed separately.
Consider another hypothetical project: Wikibibliography, that
catalogs and reviews all books ever printed, which would be something
like the OCLC WorldCat on an open content basis. Any such project has
goals that have a rather small overlap with that of Wikipedia.
However, that overlap (a few thousand articles) might be interesting
enough that compatible licenses and some coordination could be useful.
I tend to agree with Lars here.
I am interested in such a project, and I think it could have a life on
its own, with some of its information being in wikipedia as well.
I tend to consider Wikipedia as a "generalist" encyclopedia, which
should try to stay simple, readable to most, and avoid jargon and very
specialised information. Wikipedia can be a central reference, with
surrounding projects, smaller, and more specialised.
I still need to see better what this project should be, but I think it
should be separated, but with strong interactions with Wikipedia.