Hello, I have already answered some of these arguments earlier.

David Goodman wrote:

Not only can the OpenLibrary do it perfect well without us. considering our rather inconsistent standards, they can probably do it better without us. We will just get in the way.

The issue is not if OpenLibrary is "doing it perfect well without us", even if that were true. Currently what OpenLibrary does is not very useful for Wikimedia, and partly duplicate what we do. Wikimedia has also important assets which OL doesn't have, and therefore a collaboration seems obviously beneficial for both.

There is sufficient missing material in every Wikipedia, sufficient lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for updating articles, sufficient potentially free media to add, sufficient needed imagery to get; that we have more than enough work for all the volunteers we are likely to get.

To duplicate an existing project is particularly unproductive when the other project is doing it better than we are ever going to be able to. Yes, there are people here who could do it or learn to do it--but I think everyone here with that degree of bibliographic knowledge would be much better occupied in sourcing articles.

It is clear that you didn't even read my proposal. Please do before emitting objections. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books...

I specifically wrote that my proposal is not necessarily starting a new project. I agree that working with Open Library is necessary for such project, but I also say if Wikimedia gets involved, it would be much more successful.

What you say here is completely the opposite how Wikimedia projects work, i.e. openness, and that's just what is missing in Open Library.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

Regards, Yann