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