Erik Moeller wrote:
What are the downsides?
- The user interface is likely to be a bit clunky at first. We can fix
that.
- This project can exceed Wikipedia in costs if it is successful. I
believe prominent fundraisers will cover us, if not, we can fix this by
limiting the scope of the commons.
- People will upload all sorts of things which we don't want. We can fix
that the same way we deal with Wikipedia articles we don't want.
- Changes to the software will be very specific to our needs, other
MediaWiki sites will probably be unable to interface directly with the
commons. Maybe we can authorize other projects on an individual basis to
interface with us.
If I may suggest another complication--I think using the name "Wikipedia
Commons", or a variation on it, such as a
commons.wikimedia.org URL,
will give some people the impression that material there is licensed
under one of the Creative Commons licenses. If this source repository is
not going to restrict itself to any one license, its name should not
suggest that it does.
For that reason, I prefer the Wikisource name, and I agree with mav that
it seems like we could just expand our existing project instead of
starting a new one. I'm not terribly familiar with the activity on
Wikisource, but if Ec thinks the commons project would just compete with
it, he's in a good position to know. Why should we dissipate our energy
on setting up duelling projects?
--Michael Snow