On 10/18/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I would hate for an opportunity like this, of getting something really useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.
I don't see how it's going to be lost, is there another free encyclopedia that they'll partner with if we don't slather wikipedia with externals to them?
I suspect that, like myself, many people have a hard time getting excited about filling up wikipedia with more externals rather than enhancing the value of Wikipedia directly.
Geodata in articles about subjects which have a definite location belongs in Wikipedia, that much is clear. I don't think its at all clear that we need to undertake a large effort to integrate with a third party site which is providing a service we should ultimately provide ourselves.
I agree. I hate to pour cold water on what would be very cool and potentially useful.
But if you've used Placeopedia, you'll notice it's not wiki.
While you can place a "pin" on their map and link to a Wikipedia article, you cannot directly change another person's contribution if you have an issue with it. You have to fill out a form and an alternate location which gets submitted. The process thereafter is unknown.
Who are the folks mediating that decision? Suddenly we would have Wikipedia pointing (en mass) to a map system controlled by a single person/entity. There is not much information on their site, other than to mail "team@placeopedia.com." The "mysociety.org" site which sponsors it points to Tom Steinberg as the project leader.
But given Wikipedia's tradition of openess and transparency, a strong link to Placeopedia, the way it operates now would seem to be rather incompatible with that idea.
-Andrew