Lars Aronsson wrote:

Forgive me if this gets philosophical, and not very practical.

No, I think it is very interesting!

There are, of course, already other Wikis. http://c2.com/ (the original Wiki, founded in 1994) has the Portland Pattern Repository, devoted to object-oriented software development and eXtreme Programming. Some of the information there might overlap with Wikipedia, but most of it would be considered too non-encyclopedic if it was suddenly copied to Wikipedia.

Also, I don't think their content is released under an open license.

Could a Wiki devoted to history have a place outside of Wikipedia? When describing London, it would focus on the city's historic features, not on the facets of today's London. Then again, Wikipedia's entries on many things are focused on history. It is almost as if Wikipedia is that history Wiki. History, after all, is so much more in line with the contents of an encyclopedia than is object-oriented software development.

Right. But imagine a travel-guide wiki. The information would not necessarily be NPOV as in an encyclopedia -- it could be and probably should be quirky and opinionated. Such a guide might use wikipedia content as a foundation, but we probably wouldn't (due to our NPOV interests) be able to use much of what they generated. No problem.

Could a leftist-point-of-view Wiki exist side by side with Wikipedia? It would carefully point out any misuse of power, and list activist and political groups. Its logotype could be a hammer-and-sickle or simply a red star on white background. (There is already a leftist encyclopedia (non-Wiki) in Danish on http://www.leksikon.org/)

Boy, I personally find it very funny to imagine a leftist-point-of-view wiki pointing out "any misuse of power". :-) Perhaps that should say "any misuse of power not sanctioned by leftists".

A youth culture Wiki might list all the hot dance clubs in London, but forget the British Museum. (Does Wikipedia list any clubs at all?) The entire Wiki could be white text on black background.

I think target groups, focus, design, logotypes would be different for each one of these Wikis. Just like websites are different today. Some titles (like "London") would exist in several of them, but with a different slant. Some titles (like "British Museum") might only exist in Wikipedia.

If all of these Wikis existed side by side, how would Wikipedia best take advantage of this expanded network? Should Wikipedia be its backbone, or try to be self-sufficient, ignoring the outside world?

Just to be clear: I'm not suggesting a fork of Wikipedia.

Right.

I think that we have to stick to our central mission: the encyclopedia. The idea of "encyclopedia" is one that we all understand, and I think it has been miraculous in terms of letting people from possibly wildly different viewpoints work together. It gives us a simple test for whether or not something belongs here.

But by no means do I think this exhausts the possibilities for vibrant wiki communities.

--Jimbo

On Monday 18 March 2002 23:57, Lars Aronsson wrote:

I'm trying to understand where the boundaries for Wikipedia are. Forgive me if this gets philosophical, and not very practical.

Could a Wiki devoted to history have a place outside of Wikipedia? When describing London, it would focus on the city's historic features, not on the facets of today's London. Then again, Wikipedia's entries on many things are focused on history. It is almost as if Wikipedia is that history Wiki. History, after all, is so much more in line with the contents of an encyclopedia than is object-oriented software development.

Assuming FDL for all instances, perhaps cut'n'pasting from a history wiki into wikipedia might be easier than the other way round.

Could a leftist-point-of-view Wiki exist side by side with Wikipedia?

Only on the sinister side ... <g> <<OK, how many of you figured that one out?>>

It would carefully point out any misuse of power

You mean as in [[Stalin]], [[Pol Pot]], [[Mao]] . . . ?

, and list activist and political groups.

Expect lots and lots of vandalism.

A youth culture Wiki might list all the hot dance clubs in London, but

Feasible, but youth "culture" changes so quickly that you might as well start from scratch every two years or so.

If all of these Wikis existed side by side, how would Wikipedia best take advantage of this expanded network? Should Wikipedia be its backbone, or try to be self-sufficient, ignoring the outside world?

If you want to start a page on [[London - dance clubs]] (as opposed to [[London - Snobby Oak-panelled Gentlemens' clubs]]) and expand from there, nobody is going to stop you. But they would still have to be NPOV:

'''DruggedOutOfMySkull''' is a dance venue in Totally Wasted Street, [[London]]. It became notorious after the largest collection of [[ecstacy]] tablets in history was found there during a police raid in 2001.

But as soon as people arrive and start writing stuff like "Hey, had a great time here last weekend, if you want the good stuff ask for Charlie", the wiki NPOV thought police are likely to descend on it, I'm afraid <g>

BUT once this particular period of youth culture passes into oblivion and is replaced by another, a record of it in a separate wiki could serve as a useful primary source from which, with a lot of editing and material from elsewhere, you could create a fascinating wikipedia article on [[London - Youth culture in 2002/3]].