All species would mean a detailed review by experts and I think that the
dimensions of such a project are too big to be even estimated. At this
point I think we should rather talk about wikispecies as a species
directory without limitations rather than the demand of becoming
First of all, I think it would be attractive for people interested in
limited groups of species; according to distribution, taxon, ecology,
What we should define as a target: Wikispecies should become the most
extensive directory of its kind and not specialise exclusivly on a
particular group of species (as fishbase does, for example) nor users (NOT
for scientists only, for example).
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Looks essentially what a wikispecies should
look like, I guess. I
> w-species would focus more on the biology,
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.
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Wikipedia-l mailing list
NEU: Bis zu 10 GB Speicher f�r e-mails & Dateien!
1 GB bereits bei GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail