Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
Such a project must not overlap with Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project in any significant way. For example, creating a war and conflict Wikimedia project would be unwise since that would divert energy now used to improve that aspect of Wikipedia. But that is not to say that creating a textbook on the subject would be a bad idea to have on Wikibooks (in fact, such a textbook would be most welcome). However, that is different than having individual articles on individual topics (which is the role of an encyclopedia).
I still need to see better what this project should be, but I think it should be separated, but with strong interactions with Wikipedia.
It sounds like an openly editable relational database is needed. That way small amounts of info could be used and searched for in Wikispecies while prose and encyclopedic info can be kept in Wikipedia. Such software could also be used for other database info on just about anything, so limiting this to just species and taxa may be unwise.
But I will not support any fork of our bilogy section. Any Wikispecies project *must* be complimentary to Wikipedia and cause no harm to it. The burden of proof is on those who want to start such a project if they want it to be hosted by Wikimedia.
This also brings up a very important general point: We need to develop a clear process for starting new projects (language versions are a separate matter). For example, proposals need to be made, then debated and refined. A list of any software 'must haves' and wants needs to be developed (these are very significant for Wikispecies) and then we need to determine if the project can start without the 'must haves' or if it has to wait until the software is ready. An assement on whether or not the proposed project concept could be absorbed into an existing Wikimedia project and if that proposed project would welcome also needs to be conducted. Pros and cons need to be devloped. Then we need to have a Wikimedia-wide vote to certify the project and launch it (if the software needed to run it has been developed).
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mav, I remain amazed about the arguments you have against wikispecies, and I really wonder what you base your comments on. I am a database guy. I have created a relational database specifically for the taxonomy of plants and I *know* that this does not cover all the bases. Then again, the Wikimedia product is based on MySQL which can do relational things. The current wikimedia software is a great starting point to find out the requirements. What is the point of starting coding without a spec. Specs have not been written in commission. Specs are not democratic. Specs are meritocratic.We do not know what is needed at this point in time.
I have put many arguments and I have not seen one refuted so far.
When Wikispecies is a resource, you can have all scientific publication resulting in a valid scientific names for one plant. This is not usefull in Wiktionary and it is outside of the current scope of the ToL.
To have a war, you need warring sentiments. There is no need for those. It will be a different public. It is similar with wikipedia and wiktionary. When an article on Wikipedia is only a dictionary definition you plaster {{beg}} on it and possibly copy the defition to wiktionary; everybody is a winner. The same with wikispecies and wikicommons, a load of pictures a load of scientific publications adding up to resources that can be used on en:ToL, nl:ToL, fr:ToL. It is the same thing as with nl:wikipedia, we do not mind the en:ToL for us it is a resource not a competitor. We can be a resource for en:ToL. We do have species for which there is no article on en:Wikipedia. That does not mean we are in a state of war !!
Wikispecies will not be a textbook, it will be a resource. The value will increase with a growing amount of data. As such the highest value will be in the en:ToL as this will be the starting point for a lot of Wikispecies information. It will refer to en:ToL, it will use the Taxoboxes. From there it will grow. It will also link to the other wikipedia and as a consequence have data not available on en:. Who is losing out, who stands to benefit ?
When specific software is created for Wikispecies, it will exist with specifity. It will be created for taxonomic use. It does not mean that relational stuff will not be possible for other projects as that is a function of MySQL and has nothing to do with Wikispecies.
One final question, when a project is proposed, when enough people are interested in it, why would you oppose it. What do you have to lose? What is it to you? This is an open project, if you do not like it, do not contribute to it.
Nobody is saying this is going to be a winner, only time will tell. The only thing is, there are people who think it may be valuable and it may have potential. They want to find out what the possibilities are. They can do this inside of wikimedia and they can do this outside wikimedia. Having it within wikimedia gives Wikimedia more weight not less.
Thanks, Gerard