I went to the Tree of Life page - thanks for the link, btw. I thought it was a Wiki project, and thus housed on a wiki-site (wikitol.com or something like that). It's nice, but a wikispecies would, I think, be easier to navigate. That's simply how I've seen the wikis to be.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benedikt Mandl Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:09 AM To: wpmail@pcbartlett.com; wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Developers needed!
- A review of similar projects on the web. Particularly:
-- ITIS is a US government database - is it public domain. Would it be usable? -- What happened to the data from the crippled allspecies project? Could it be released and used? -- Tolweb? Who is behind it? How are they doing? Would they welcome co-operation?
An evalutation of that was already done to some extend. I know ITIS and its European equivalent IPNI, both very good ressources and probably supportive. Species2000 is based on other species bases who certainly got money at least in some cases for providing their data. ALL species released nothing apart from big noise and therefore, I would personally not expect much more than addresses with people who might support us. They still maintain an office via the Californian Academy of Sciences, but don't do much. I will check out Tolweb. So far, I'd say that Fishbase.org is the most advanced database in a similar manner as WikiSpecies should be.
- Funding. A db devoted to species is much more likely to be eligible
for certain funding than a general project. E.g. tolweb is basically funded by NSF grants (http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/funding.html). Could/should wikispecies take advantage in a way that wikipedia hasn't/can't?
Funding: I created a list of potential supporters, covering government grants, private foundations, museums, universities and individuals who might provide us with funding. The problem is, that several projects were based on donations and public funding and didn't take off properly (ALL species, Species2000). All successful bases (IPNI, fishbase.org) were at least started as non-commercial, more than less public directories. I dont want to release the list, as I don't think that funding will be neccessary to get started - and a pain to get unless we have something to show.
- Target audience. The target audience should be scientists and the
information contained should be scientific. This will attract scientists to the project. Otherwise it overlaps with the current WP project too much.
Yes and no - in combination with wikipedia and wiktionary I am sure that WikiSpecies will become a valuable and accepted ressource for many non- professional users as well. See fishbase: it is scientific, done by scientist, but highly aprreciated by divers, nature lovers, marinists and even aquarium-fetishists.
- A commitment to develop the WikiDB module as mentioned by Tim
Starling. I don't think using plain MediaWiki would be good enough for wikispecies - implementing in terms of categories and templates would be a bit hackish for the purposes required. A proper db would reduce the overlap with WPToL.
- A commitment that the information would be GDFL compatible.
Most of taxonomic data is open and public anyway.
Thank you for the input. I am looking forward on more feedback and support. Best,
Benedikt
-- NEU: Bis zu 10 GB Speicher f|r e-mails & Dateien! 1 GB bereits bei GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l