Hi, in case you havn't read my initial e-mail: I am currently trying to establish a wiki-based, open species directory at www.wikispecies.org/, which is meant to become a wikimedia project. I got some support for contents by a range of wikipedia writers, but what I really need now are developers who set up a basic structure so that we can get started. Jimbo Wales suggested that the inital wikispecies would be basically the same as the one of wikipedia. I evaluated some species data bases and based on that I worked out a basic structure: a main page with search functions and sub-pages for an individual species/genus/family and so on, whith different features that can be searched for (for details see bottom of this e-mail). If you think you can help, please let me know - every support is much appreciated! Thanks, Benedikt ------------------------------------------------------- MAIN PAGE AND SUBPAGE STRUCTURE Best viewed at: www.fishbase.org (though for a rather professional user, therefore a bit extensive). Main page would need to be a search page that provides a determination key as well. Search terms A general division in “standard search” and “advanced search” with details would be good. NAME (common name, scientific names, synonyms, taxonomic number, etc.) CLASSIFICATION KEY (classification, would be perfect if we could get a PDA compatible one for field applications) GLOSSARY FAMILY (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase) DISTRIBUTION (loads of detail search functions see at fishbase: ‘country’) ECOSYSTEM (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase) TOPIC (special topics and articles) TOOLS (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase; including a reference/literature search) BIODIVERSITY MAP (once again: see at fishbase) MEDIA (maps, films, pictures, if available) Subpage for species: CLASSIFICATION (as tree diagram, looks like a path) NAMES MORPHOLOGY (incl. picture or illustration) BEHAVIOUR RESILIANCE / REPRODUCTION HABITAT / ENVIRONMENT MEDIA (images, maps, diagrams, videos, etc.) CLIMATE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE DISTRIBUTION (geographically and in terms of countries) CONSERVATION STATUS DANGERS REFERENCES entered/checked/modified

Hi, in case you havn't read my initial e-mail: I am currently trying to establish a wiki-based, open species directory at www.wikispecies.org/, which is meant to become a wikimedia project. I got some support for contents by a range of wikipedia writers, but what I really need now are developers who set up a basic structure so that we can get started. Jimbo Wales suggested that the inital wikispecies would be basically the same as the one of wikipedia. I evaluated some species data bases and based on that I worked out a basic structure: a main page with search functions and sub-pages for an individual species/genus/family and so on, whith different features that can be searched for (for details see bottom of this e-mail). If you think you can help, please let me know - every support is much appreciated! Thanks, Benedikt

--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52(a)comcast.net> wrote: from Absolutely not! Wikipedia is the place to have articles on species - not a separate project. -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

I'm all for it - sounds pretty cool. Could there possibly be redirects from the Wikipedia to the Wikispecies, or vice versa? Then Wikispecies could hold all the species info, and free up wikipedia space for other stuff (don't know what, but it could). Would it be like current wikis as in en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org,

Benedikt, Do you want the wikispecies to be English only, or have sub-domains en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org, ang.wikispecies.org

James

I totally disagree; I am sure that a lot of information will be overlapping and therefore, the two projects should remain connected. Nevertheless, a species directory would serve a different purpose than the wikipedia as such and have a significantly different structure (as seen in the draft at my last e-mail) to allow highly specific search functions.

I already got a lot of supportive e-mails by a range of people - and that is eventually what counts for a wiki project, to my understanding. There is a need for an extensive species directory, and I will keep asking for support!

The current stable of Wikimedia projects (Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Source repositroy, Quote library) do not overlap very much. The species project and ToL sub-project of the encyclopedia however, will certainly overlap a lot. I think it is very important to work out the best way to deal with that.

Firstly, the ToL project pages want the same data as you want, though pages tend to be in more prose form than your list of headings indicate that you desire. Thus wikispecies is effectively a subset of wikipedia, unless you intend there to be detail that would not be allowed in Wikipedia?

For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I can narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis, homo erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata, then Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that page. Is that what you mean by category? James

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.

For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I can narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis, homo erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata, then Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that

Is that what you mean by category? James

Smaller projects also involve more people in the decision making, and mean

For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I can narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis, homo erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata, then Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that

Is that what you mean by category?

Looks essentially what a wikispecies should look like, I guess. I guess a w-species would focus more on the biology, history, genealogy, genetics, or what, so that it's different from the w-pedia?

All that should be covered in the Wikipedia article.

Would the w-species give EVERY species a place, even extinct ones? And how would species of unknown or questionable placement work (dinosaurs to birds, or perhaps dimetrodons)? Hopefully w-species could come up with an ordering system, so that if one person were to edit the species' page, say the genus changed, it would change elsewhere on the w-species automatically? Say homo sapiens were renamed to jimbo sapiens. Then all the links or redirects would alter accordingly, perhaps through a webbot or automatic crawler?

Daniel Mayer wrote: My impression is that Wikispecies' goal is to catalog *every* existing (and extinct?) species. We're talking about, what, hundred thousands of articles. This is similar to documenting every town and village, no matter what the size, and such attempts have historically not been appreciated within Wikipedia. This is why I think Wikispecies should be developed separately. Consider another hypothetical project: Wikibibliography, that catalogs and reviews all books ever printed, which would be something like the OCLC WorldCat on an open content basis. Any such project has goals that have a rather small overlap with that of Wikipedia. However, that overlap (a few thousand articles) might be interesting enough that compatible licenses and some coordination could be useful.

+------+ | db | <------ interface ----> WIKIPEDIA | ....| | : | <--- other interface -> WIKISPECIES +------+ instead of +------+ | db | <----- interface ----> WIKIPEDIA | | +----+ | | <-- manual updating ----------------> |db2 | -> WIKISPECIES +------+ +----+ What do you think?

What we should define as a target: Wikispecies should become the most extensive directory of its kind and not specialise exclusivly on a particular group of species (as fishbase does, for example) nor users (NOT for scientists only, for example).

Daniel Mayer wrote: a or My impression is that Wikispecies' goal is to catalog *every* existing (and extinct?) species. We're talking about, what, hundred thousands of articles. This is similar to documenting every town and village, no matter what the size, and such attempts have historically not been appreciated within Wikipedia. This is why I think Wikispecies should be developed separately.

[...] You presume that little is known about many species, when there is traction among the serious amateurs and the professionals, you will be amazed how much is known about things on a species, subspecies, variety and forma level.

The scientific descriptions of taxons are inherently public domain, there is no single resource that collects them. I know of a Yahoo group that has some descriptions on line for cacti. There are more of these small resources. By having an open place where these things can be posted with some assurance that they will remain there, you already have something that adds value beyond the current ToL and gives validation to the idea of a Wikispecies.

I am interested in such a project, and I think it could have a life on its own, with some of its information being in wikipedia as well. I tend to consider Wikipedia as a "generalist" encyclopedia, which should try to stay simple, readable to most, and avoid jargon and very specialised information. Wikipedia can be a central reference, with surrounding projects, smaller, and more specialised.

I still need to see better what this project should be, but I think it should be separated, but with strong interactions with Wikipedia.

--- Anthere &lt;anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Such a project must not overlap with Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project in any significant way. For example, creating a war and conflict Wikimedia project would be unwise since that would divert energy now used to improve that aspect of Wikipedia. But that is not to say that creating a textbook on the subject would be a bad idea to have on Wikibooks (in fact, such a textbook would be most welcome). However, that is different than having individual articles on individual topics (which is the role of an encyclopedia). It sounds like an openly editable relational database is needed. That way small amounts of info could be used and searched for in Wikispecies while prose and encyclopedic info can be kept in Wikipedia. Such software could also be used for other database info on just about anything, so limiting this to just species and taxa may be unwise. But I will not support any fork of our bilogy section. Any Wikispecies project *must* be complimentary to Wikipedia and cause no harm to it. The burden of proof is on those who want to start such a project if they want it to be hosted by Wikimedia. This also brings up a very important general point: We need to develop a clear process for starting new projects (language versions are a separate matter). For example, proposals need to be made, then debated and refined. A list of any software 'must haves' and wants needs to be developed (these are very significant for Wikispecies) and then we need to determine if the project can start without the 'must haves' or if it has to wait until the software is ready. An assement on whether or not the proposed project concept could be absorbed into an existing Wikimedia project and if that proposed project would welcome also needs to be conducted. Pros and cons need to be devloped. Then we need to have a Wikimedia-wide vote to certify the project and launch it (if the software needed to run it has been developed). -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

How to implement this technically speaking, I don't know, but how about this: - The Wikispecies interface only shows article tagged with Category:Wikispecies (or whatever is the best category). - This project uses a specific parser, allowing for the implementation of tree navigation and a more "scientifically" looking output of data (that can be found in the taxabox). - Maybe other data is in the articles used as source for Wikispecies and hidden somehow (via a special comment mode or some other specialized tag in the article, or even as additional stored data in a separate db, accessed via the article name = scientific species name as key) - "Edit this entry" in the Wikispecies interface would bring up a window consisting of: - the wikipedia edit window showing the source text - additional data input fields - A user in the wikipedia proper will only see the wikipedia article, but not the additional data. The only thing other for them is the "Category:Wikispecies" tag (which would explain, when opened as article, what Wikispecies project is and how to access it in the "scientific" interface). __ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . . _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

What do you think of the proposal I sketched out somewhere further up in this thread -- to make Wikispecies not a different database, but only a different interface on the same db, maybe using additional tables, indices?

What is this overlap? Given that ToL only covers the most recent names and loads of names have been validly published and still have relevance,

I fail to see where the overlap is. You presume that little is known about many species, when there is traction among the serious amateurs and the professionals, you will be amazed how much is known about things on a species, subspecies, variety and forma level.

The scientific descriptions of taxons are inherently public domain, there is no single resource that collects them.

I know of a Yahoo group that has some descriptions on line for cacti. There are more of these small resources.

By having an open place where these things can be posted with some assurance that they will remain there, you already have something that adds value beyond the current ToL and gives validation to the idea of a Wikispecies.

Why don't we see a few example web pages of what the wikispecies will look like, or have several different examples, perhaps somewhere on Wikimedia, so we can refine the interface/idea?

On Tuesday 24 August 2004 22:50, James R. Johnson wrote: that would be nice, in particular for "outsiders" like me who probably do not understand the core of the problem. What I have seen at fishbase.org and from what I know about the scope of Wikipedia I don't see the problem yet. If additional features are needed for wikispecies we should discuss if it's possible to add these to the existing software.

The only problem I see at the moment is the remark that articles should be locked, which I can understand, but I think at least the accepted wikispecies experts should be able to modify the article.

The overlap between this proposed project and Wikipedia is simply too great and will thus harm our coverage of taxa and species by dividing that aspect between two different projects.

This sounds interesting... --- Till Westermayer &lt;till(a)tillwe.de&gt; wrote: _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Would the new project be GFDL? Would it be easy to transfer contents to/from Wikipedia? How would we ensure that effort is not duplicated between the two projects? Do you have suggestions for improvements to the ToL project? I understand that the information collected by the ToL project will indeed overlap to a big extent with the wikispecies directory, but that might turn out as an advantage rather than a disadvantage. As you said, the ToL presents information in a prosaic way as it is suitable for an encyclopedia. If wikispecies should become a reference for all users (including scientists), however, there are some points you need to consider: 1.) A clear sturcture as the one presented previously would be crucial for a specific (mind the play on words - specific) search; and that is imortant to attract professional users 2.) The sheer amount and uniformness of the bio-data would justify a separate access to the information 3.) A separate platform does NOT mean that wikispecies will have to be segregated from the wikipedia. Rather the opposite: wikispecies websites should use the same layout and should be accessible from wikipedia by normal search. More advanced users, however, would search with more detailed tools from the "wikispecies.org" portal. So far, the ToL is ambitous, but doesn't serve the purpose of a wikispecies that should be organised in taxonomic terms and trees and deal exclusively for biological contents. It is not meant to compete with wikipedia, but rather branch out of it without being a separate unit. I am looking forward to your support! By the way: most people who already assured me of their support were people who work as authors for wikipedia in bio-related subjects. Best, Benedikt

--- Benedikt Mandl &lt;benedikt.mandl(a)gmx.at&gt; wrote: cover was done Daniel Mayer wrote: OKay - you first state that others have tried and failed.

I understand Mav's reservations, even though I'm for a wikispecies. Why don't we simply have a trial w-species on that wikispecies.org site, try out a few interface designs, and back-end stuff, and see if it'll work?

way, it won't be a wikiproject, but it will still exist and let people

it, see if it's popular/used enough, and if it gets the go-ahead from Media-Wiki, move whatever was done over to Media-Wiki. James -----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benedikt Mandl Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:07 AM To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed! Great - then let's have a look why "ALL species" failed: 1.) They started with a lot of noise, collected a lot of money and

people as full term staff 2.) They rented offices as head quarters and hired experts to do some programming for a search engine 3.) They wasted money on meetings, conventions and media events without realising that they were - due to their organisational structure -

dependent on financial confidence 4.) The donations decreased after the dot-com crash 5.) Their targets were simply insane - a website for every existing species within a human generation sounds nice in "New Scientist", but lacks of feasibility 6.) They busted - much ado about nothing I don't see any mistake that Wikispecies would make in a similar manner. Another thing we can learn from www.all-species.org: there is a whole

of the most eminent taxonomists, all of them supporting the idea of a central database of species, indicating an urgent need for that. They

took on the patronage (whatever that means in "ALL species" terms). Mav: HOW MANY OF THEM DO YOU THINK SUPPORT A GENERAL ENCYCLOPEDIA? How many of

already support the ToL in public? We need a seperat approach to the species project in addition to wikipedia. This is the only way to attract specialist authors and users. Mav, you made it clear that you don't like wikispecies. Many other people disagree

you and I think you should respect their wish for a wikispecies without coming up with inappropriate brabbling about a "war". 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(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

6) There should be a defined mechanism for importing wikispecies information into wikipedia. I envisage the current ToL taxoboxes being currently replaced with information imported from wikispecies using some sort of filter. Alongside this import would sit a more waffly description of the species and less scientific-relevant information. The import process should be automated as possible, and preferably entirely automatic and in real-time (though this would require an extension to the MW software). This import should be designed to work with non-English Wikipedias as far as is possible. It would not be acceptable to just have links to Wikispecies. It must be more integrated to avoid duplication of effort.

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.

Daniel Mayer wrote: Fair enough. I don't really care how its implemented. I just care that there is an easy way to avoid duplication of effort.

Really? I was under the impression it should become a repository for free images and multimedia files. Or do you mean playing with the interface? We can do that too.

That is a total strawman Lars - I expect better from you. First, IMDb is NOT a Wikimedia project.

Just for the record, I think Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. ant

Alternate solution, which would require much less special cases: * introduce "<optional type=wikispecies>lots'o'data</optional>" tag, which will ** show the data for everyone who has marked himself as a member of wikispecies project in user settings ** show a link "More detail information" for everyone else; that link will then display the full thing * introduce "<categorytree>" tag, which will show a category tree for the current article ** attribute "super=1" to show the category below, "super=all" to show everything down to the root ** attribute "sub=1" to show the next subcategory, "sub=all" to show them all

This is * relatively easy to hack (hide "optional" section unless this-and-that condition) * usable for many sub-projects like histroy etc. * allows everyone to get all the data without "average" users being squashed by it * fully transparent for searching (search will find keywords in the "optional" secation as well)

If required, we can parse-out the "optional" part for editing. But that's optional ;-)

Magnus

Daniel Mayer wrote:

_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Daniel Mayer a écrit: > --- Anthere &lt;anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: > >>Just for the record, I think Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. ant > > > Just for the record, you are mistaken. Have you seen all the niche

It is *not* because they exist that I approve them. My thoughts still have the right to be mine, and I do not believe you have the right to tell me that my thoughts are mistakes. A personal opinion is never a mistake, what would be a mistake here would be to force this opinion on others. My feeling is that Wikipedia *should* be a general encyclopedia, but I am certainly not gonna remove great articles which go into details. Of course not. Allow me to not necessarily agree by default with what is currently done. We obviously do not have the same feeling toward what Wikipedia should be exactly. On some points, we have consensus, such as Wikipedia is not a forum of discussion. On others, it is not so obvious. The claim en.wikipedia is not a dictionnary is not a claim I personnally recognise as valid, because the french tradition is to mix dictionnaries and encyclopedia much more than english-speaking people do. As far as I am concerned, all encyclopedic articles should contain dictionnary information. However, some people do not think so and I recognise they are benefits to the existence of wiktionnaries as well, mostly for translation I think. Still, the two projects, encyclopedia and wiktionnaries are strongly overlapping sometimes, and *two* projects exist nonetheless. And I saw very few people objecting to the wiktionary existence, nor to the overlap. Consequently, let me repeat I think Wikipedia SHOULD be a general encyclopedia, and articles thought for rather general public, ie, avoid going in length into jargon and very detailed information. Which is why I am not entirely happy with the idea of filling up the article on the tiger with all the information we are talking about. An article on tiger should be kept relativement simple itself. I perfectly agree for detailed semi-professional articles to stay in Wikipedia. I wrote a couple of them. However, they should be rather in separate articles, the main one staying readable for most readers. The more detailed ones being seen as "to go further". If you fill up the tiger article with very detailed information, you will flood the average reader. If the detailed information is in another article, more specialised, only the specialist will go and read it, and the casual reader will not get scared. The detailed article could be on Wikipedia or on another project, it does not matter very much, as long as the two projects are tightly linked. But all info in one article is just a bad idea. Imho. Anthere _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . . Hi Magnus, there seem to be two obvious possible solutions: the one you described, and the one I described (below). While thinking about my proposal, I thought along the lines of your proposal (not in that general way, rather in the form of: let there be a part commented out in the wiki source, that is only interpreted in wikispecies). Your optional-tag is a much more general and elegant solution to that problem. But I'm still not sure if it is the best solution (even if it is relative easy to hack). This is mainly because I think what project like WikiSpecies, or maybe WikiStamps, WikiRamBotUSTowns, WikiElections etc. need in additionto the free form text editable in Wikipedia is something like a wiki-definable db (so Tim's general WikiDB approach seems to go more in that direction). The other thing all these possible projects have in common that they should continue to be anchored in Wikipedia, but they also should have the db information. One could do that with the solution I proposed, i.e. by using separate but somehow linked dbs and interfaces, or one could invent a special markup for custom variable fields in the wiki text (i.e. something like the Semantic Web people are doing, if I understand their approach correctly). I'm not sure if using markup for db fields to simulate a db in a db is such a good idea, but it's easy editable, that much is sure. A typical entry on, say, a totally bogus tiger, could maybe look like this in a markup-db-solution: Tigers are [[mammal]]s living in the [[Sibiria|Sibirian]] [[Tundra]]. ... == Species data == [[kingdom]]: [[animal]]s <<TOL:kingdom=animalia>> [[family or whatever that is]]: [[mammal]] <<TOL:family=mammalia>> [[species]]: big cats (''felibigus'') <<TOL:species=felibigus>> ... == Trivia == Tigers are a big issue in Winnie-the-Pooh, especially one tiger called Tigger. <<LIT:occurence=Tiger,book=Winnie-the-Pooh,name=Tigger>> This would give the following pseudo db entries: in the Tree of life database (short: TOL) in the kingdom table the relation key:Tiger <-> kingdom:animalia in the family table the relation key:Tiger <-> family:mammalia in the species table the relation key:Tiger <-> species:felibigus in the Literatur database (short: LIT) in the occurence table the relation key:generated <-> occurence:Tiger,book:Winnie-the-Pooh, name:Tigger ((key generated because the article name appears on the right side of the pseudo db entry in the wikipedia article -> brings to our attention the problem of n:m relations)) I don't know if it is possible to automatically parse changes in such entries to maintan databases. One (rather brute force way) would be to delete everything in such a database which has the article name key of "Tiger" if the article is changed, then parse the article for pseudo-db entries marked with <<...>> and insert the information anew. There could be a / a lot of specialized interfaces for queries on this database (which is something separate from the wiki article text db), where on could say something like (in very pseudo SQL): SELECT from the TOL database from the kingdom table all entries where kingdom = animalia gives back formatted information on Tiger (see Wikipedia article, see all TOL information, see all information) Cat Shark Homo sapiens ... Just some ideas, some thinking aloud. ---- __ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . . _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Much of what apogr wrote is beyond me,

key problems: I find these to be pervasive problems, both for WP as a whole (in creating projects, defining category-sets, identifying key subject areas), for each of its subprojects (in creating article-lists, identifying goals of equal importance, covering an entire topic), and for each individual article (in balancing detail across aspects of an article, maintaining consistent perspective, and maintaining a connection

other articles at higher and lower levels of detail). +sj+ > b) it is a semi-finished colouring book with clolours of uneven

> c) it is a number of diligent tube-sighted people caught in the process

ps - these gems should surely go on the list of [[what wikipedia is]]... _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...] _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l