Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of course. But why invite confusion, especially if we include things under CC licenses, as Erik's proposal would allow? Better to have a distinct name that causes no misunderstandings. Since the commons is land for the use of the whole community, how about the equivalent in water? i.e. "Wikimedia Reservoir". The original sense of "source" is water-based, too.I can see how the misinterpretation of "Commons" that you cite might arise , but the image that it evoked from me was quite different, and is based on a meaning of "Commons" that has been around for much longer: the town square where everyone comes together to share what unites them.
(Ray Saintonge also wrote:)> 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? "Compete" does not exactly describe my concern. It's more a clash of visions.
Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor of Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a competitor of Project Sourceberg.This statement from your previous post was part of the reason I expressed myself as I did. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
This I would wholeheartedly endorse. For me personally, and I know of others, the biggest thing that inhibits participating in multiple Wikimedia projects is the nuisance (mixed with a little laziness) of having to log in separately to each one.Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.