Erik Moeller wrote:
The goal of Wikisource is to be a text respository. Text is only a subset of the larger group of media, and there is no reason to have a specific repository exclusively for text and a combined repository for other media. Either they should all be combined or they should all be split up.
Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource be about more than just text?
Just expand the focus of Wikisource instead of creating a new project.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel-
Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource be about more than just text?
It certainly can and should. Given the technical changes I've described that would be necessary to integrate this into the other projects, however, I would very much be in favor of also changing the name of the project, which is a minor change in comparison.
Wikisource is presently not an established name; outside of Wikipedia's servers there are about 700 Google hits on it, and most of them appear to be Wikipedia mirrors or irrelevant hits (referring to WikiSource as the source of a wiki page). In comparison, my modest weblog "infoAnarchy" results in 50,900 hits, about 20,000 outside the server of the project. So I think we can safely establish that changing the name would not cause much grief, as it isn't very popular to begin with.
I prefer "Wikimedia Commons" because: - It is more clearly about open content, and taps into the emerging concept of a "creative commons" - It would feed all other Wikimedia projects with content, and as such, should be clearly marked as a *Wikimedia* project - This would also give additional prominence to the Wikimedia brandname which it currently lacks. - The name benefits from the "media" in Wikimedia, which is exactly what the project is about.
I find Wikisource to be a nondescript and confusing name. It is hard to see a music file or an image as a "source", there are many other meanings of that word that people will think of first. In the case of Wikibooks, the *original* impression (it's just about textbooks) didn't match the name. Here the proposed changes do not really fit well under the old name.
From a marketing perspective, I find it much easier to imagine getting the
word out how you can contribute your photos, music, texts to the Wikimedia Commons, than doing the same with "Wikisource".
If Ray's argument wins that the two projects should be kept separate for a while at least, this will also require a different name for the transition phase, and a decision which one to use after it.
Regards,
Erik
On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:32 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
Daniel-
Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource be about more than just text?
It certainly can and should. Given the technical changes I've described that would be necessary to integrate this into the other projects, however, I would very much be in favor of also changing the name of the project, which is a minor change in comparison.
Note that Wikisource is a very different project from the others. We're not building an encyclopedia or a dictionary or any other kind of book. It's just a repository of anything GFDL. I like your current idea, Erik.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
Peter Jaros wrote:
On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:32 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
Daniel-
Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource be about more than just text?
It certainly can and should. Given the technical changes I've described that would be necessary to integrate this into the other projects, however, I would very much be in favor of also changing the name of the project, which is a minor change in comparison.
Note that Wikisource is a very different project from the others. We're not building an encyclopedia or a dictionary or any other kind of book. It's just a repository of anything GFDL.
It's primarily a repository of public domain texts. Although it is subject to GFDL rules, those texts form a very small part of its contents. Non-text material is also very limited there. It's only people seeking to dump embarasing material from Wikipedia that make it a "repository of anything GFDL"
Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor of Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a competitor of Project Sourceberg. Having all these other complications that others want to add from the outside would only make that goal more difficult.
I don't see Peter's name among the registered users of Wikisource; I'll take that as a reflection of how much he knows what he's saying.
Ec
On Mar 20, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Jaros wrote:
On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:32 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
Daniel-
Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource be about more than just text?
It certainly can and should. Given the technical changes I've described that would be necessary to integrate this into the other projects, however, I would very much be in favor of also changing the name of the project, which is a minor change in comparison.
Note that Wikisource is a very different project from the others. We're not building an encyclopedia or a dictionary or any other kind of book. It's just a repository of anything GFDL.
It's primarily a repository of public domain texts. Although it is subject to GFDL rules, those texts form a very small part of its contents. Non-text material is also very limited there. It's only people seeking to dump embarasing material from Wikipedia that make it a "repository of anything GFDL"
Sorry, that was a combination mis-and-overstatement :). I meant PD, not GFDL, and "repository of anything" is, you're right, going to far.
Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor of Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a competitor of Project Sourceberg.
I'll assume you mean Project Gutenberg. :) I don't envision it necessarily as such, but I know others do, and I'm probably in the minority.
Having all these other complications that others want to add from the outside would only make that goal more difficult.
Fair enough. I obviously have seen Wikisource as something broader, but I understand better now.
I don't see Peter's name among the registered users of Wikisource; I'll take that as a reflection of how much he knows what he's saying.
Actually, I *am* a registered user (Spikey), but it's true that I haven't done much over there, so your point is valid.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org