Erik Moeller wrote:
What are the downsides?
- The user interface is likely to be a bit clunky at first. We can fix
that.
- This project can exceed Wikipedia in costs if it is successful. I
believe prominent fundraisers will cover us, if not, we can fix this by limiting the scope of the commons.
- People will upload all sorts of things which we don't want. We can fix
that the same way we deal with Wikipedia articles we don't want.
- Changes to the software will be very specific to our needs, other
MediaWiki sites will probably be unable to interface directly with the commons. Maybe we can authorize other projects on an individual basis to interface with us.
If I may suggest another complication--I think using the name "Wikipedia Commons", or a variation on it, such as a commons.wikimedia.org URL, will give some people the impression that material there is licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses. If this source repository is not going to restrict itself to any one license, its name should not suggest that it does.
For that reason, I prefer the Wikisource name, and I agree with mav that it seems like we could just expand our existing project instead of starting a new one. 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?
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
If I may suggest another complication--I think using the name "Wikipedia Commons", or a variation on it, such as a commons.wikimedia.org URL, will give some people the impression that material there is licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses. If this source repository is not going to restrict itself to any one license, its name should not suggest that it does.
My complaints have not been about Erik's basic "Wikmedia Commons" (not "Wikipedia Commons") but about its proposed merger with Wikisource. I think that his fundamental idea is excellent. Attention needs to be paid on techniques that will allow a sharing of information between projects and between languages. 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.
For that reason, I prefer the Wikisource name, and I agree with mav that it seems like we could just expand our existing project instead of starting a new one. 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. I happen to think that allowing multiple visions is a great asset to our whole Wiki family. I see Wikisource as more akin to an improved Project Gutenberg, and given the similarity in name formats, I would venture the guess that those who first proposed the Project Sourceberg name had something similar in mind. Although I would not support such a move, a similar argument could be put forth to merge the Commons with Wiktionary -- after all the words which are its focus have a common utility to all the projects.
The Wikimedia Commons needs to develop its own identity. In the unlikely event that other projects want to merge merge with it at a later time that should be allowed, but only after a consensus has been reached among the members of that project.
Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.
Ec
Ray-
we're not going to come to an agreement on this. Since the Commons platform has to work anyway before we can merge Wikisource into it, I agree that it makes sense to postpone this discussion until we have the basic technology working. However, I do not agree that a merge requires consensus. Whenever there is no consensus for either option, a real vote is what is called for. If only a slim majority favors a merge, we should of course make more concessions to those who do not.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Ray-
we're not going to come to an agreement on this. Since the Commons platform has to work anyway before we can merge Wikisource into it, I agree that it makes sense to postpone this discussion until we have the basic technology working.
Agreed, with relief. You mentioned at least 3 months for this in one of your comments. I'm sure that Wikisource can use that time valuably. :-)
However, I do not agree that a merge requires consensus. Whenever there is no consensus for either option, a real vote is what is called for. If only a slim majority favors a merge, we should of course make more concessions to those who do not.
It was not my intent to open the consensus vs. voting debate; we're both familiar enough with it to know that we don't need to go there at this time.. Suffice it to say that I was refering to some functional decision making process. The proposal would fundamentally change the nature of Wikisource. The participants at Wikisource would be just as resentful of having their fate decided by outsiders, as the participants at the German Wikipedia would be if the English speakers started making decisions for them.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org