Lars Aronsson a écrit:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
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.
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.
I tend to agree with Lars here. 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.