Mav is right about wikispecies, and I propose also that we should say his
logic should apply to wiktionary. We don't need a wiktionary, since all
that information is in the wikipedia already. It's a duplication of
efforts, and dilutes our efforts and contributors's time. Let's get rid of
PS - I'm joking
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 1:30 PM
To: wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com; wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What is the purpose of this mailing list ??
The Tree of Life project's aim has always been to
write about all
species. I think that ambitious aim has been part of the reason for
its success in becoming the largest wikiproject (tens of thousands of
articles), with the most contributors.
I fully support this, as I think it is an absolutely excellent thing to be
I am personally disappointed that you want to put a
stop to that -
presumably coming up with some guideline so that *some* species are
allowed articles, but not all.
Huh? Why would we put a stop to that? Why would we come up with guidelines
to prohibit some species from wikipedia? I do not support any such thing.
It also rides against the overwhelming consensus of
this thread, as
mentioned in my other post. Whatever their position on wikispecies,
on-one has suggested crippling wikipedia.
Especially not me! I wonder if you misunderstood something I said, because
I absolutely agree that Wikipedia and the Tree of Life project should have a
very ambitious goal of every species.
If anything, it makes more sense to say that I think that WikiSpecies should
be "crippled" in that it should not have references to Tigger and Jaws,
because it is not a general encyclopedic reference work but a specialized
database. But I don't accept that this amounts to "crippling" anymore than
wiktionary is crippled by our insisting that a dictionary is not an
Wikipedia-l mailing list