Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of course. But why invite confusion, especially if we include things under CC licenses, as Erik's proposal would allow? Better to have a distinct name that causes no misunderstandings. Since the commons is land for the use of the whole community, how about the equivalent in water? i.e. "Wikimedia Reservoir". The original sense of "source" is water-based, too.
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.
(Ray Saintonge also wrote:)
Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor of Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a competitor of Project Sourceberg.
This statement from your previous post was part of the reason I expressed myself as I did. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.
This I would wholeheartedly endorse. For me personally, and I know of others, the biggest thing that inhibits participating in multiple Wikimedia projects is the nuisance (mixed with a little laziness) of having to log in separately to each one.
--Michael Snow
Michael-
Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of course. But why invite confusion,
I don't think the name invites confusion. It would be quite ironic if the name "commons" became proprietary because "Creative Commons" adopted it. It is not desirable for the term "commons" to be merely associated with a set of licenses, to become in effect a legalistic term, and I think Larry Lessig would agree. It is much more desirable for the image of a commons in the digital age to be firmly etched into the mind of the Internet public as one of a set of content which may be freely used with limited or no restrictions.
Regards,
Erik
Michael Snow wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of course. But why invite confusion, especially if we include things under CC licenses, as Erik's proposal would allow? Better to have a distinct name that causes no misunderstandings. Since the commons is land for the use of the whole community, how about the equivalent in water? i.e. "Wikimedia Reservoir". The original sense of "source" is water-based, too.
For the time being I will consider "Wikimedia Commons" as a provisional working title for Erik's proposal. I don't really have strong feelings about the name. My concern in this debate has been primarily with the preservation of the Wikisource project. The "Wikimedia Pool" could be interesting, and "Wikimedia Matrix" would certainly get people wondering! :-)
Erik's footnote on another message is informative
I actually typed "wikisource" without thinking, referring to wiki source code, not to the Wikisource project. I think that illustrates my point about the name being ambiguous nicely.
These different interpretations of "source" do indeed speak to a clash of visions. A non-techie would seldom think in terms of source "code". As a practising bibliomaniac it's more natural for me to think of sources in terms of what I might find in old bookstores.
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.
(Ray Saintonge also wrote:)
Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor of Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a competitor of Project Sourceberg.
............................Oops! did I really say it that way? I meant Project Gutenberg. :-[
This statement from your previous post was part of the reason I expressed myself as I did. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.
This I would wholeheartedly endorse. For me personally, and I know of others, the biggest thing that inhibits participating in multiple Wikimedia projects is the nuisance (mixed with a little laziness) of having to log in separately to each one.
If the WC (pun noted but not originally intended), as a totally new project were to initiate the unified log-in from the beginning it would not have new ambiguities of its own, and could at least stop the situation from getting worse. It could begin by making sure that anyone joining that project either tranfers his existing name or chooses a new name that does not conflict with a name that already exists on any of the projects. As the family of projects grows delaying a solution to this issue only gives it a chance to get worse.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org