Or maybe just have a wikispecies that allows you to navigate via Kingdom, Phylum, Subphylum, and so on, down to species (or go directly via binomial nomenclature to the wikipedia) and then go to the wikipedia article, by having links to each language's version of that article. At least that way, the language teams would know which animals they have yet to write about.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 6:38 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!
James R. Johnson wrote:
I don't know much about the "category system," but if you were to use Kingdom, Phylum, Subphylum, Family, Class, Order, etc. down to Genus and Species as categories, that'd make it quite simple. I don't know how you'd work that, but it would make things simpler.
I have mixed feelings about the proposal. While the textual material might be better in the existing encyclopedias, there are probably data structural advantages that could be derived from the proposal, though I would see it as a single project that could be interlinked with the various Wikipedias. The idea of having a separate Wikispecies for each language would be a tremendous waste of resources.
Having a sample Wiki that works out some of the problems over a limited taxonomic range would likely be helpful so that those involved could work out the bugs in their system. This includes dealing with the view of some cladists that the traditional taxonomic ranks shown above whould be avoided. It will also be the best way to convince the skeptics that this could be a valuable spin-off. At the same time it should be made abundantly clear that support of a sample Wikispecies should not imply acceptance of a full blown project.
Spin-off or daughter projects need to be distinguished from forks in that they would seek to maintain full interoperability with the other member projects in the family. They should be bound by the same fundamental principles such as NPOV, free access, respect for copyright and each other, and the software used by each should maximize compatibility. Outside that core of policies, the diversity of approaches and formats enriches us all. It encourages members to find their own solutions to problems. In the long run over time these diverse solutions can be compared, and the techniques that prove successful on one project can be imported into another when the participants are ready. This gives more opportunity to think outside the box. The one big single project sometimes requires us to apply solutions prematurely in a way that makes it more difficult to reconsider what in hindsight might have been a superior solution.
Smaller projects also involve more people in the decision making, and mean that a newbie can feel some level of ownership much earlier. That means more wikiholics are available to do work, many of whom would soon feel unwanted on a big single project. This is a much bigger question than what happens with Wikispecies. It has more to do with scalability, and the fundamental right of every individual to reinvent the wheel.
Ec
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l