[Wikipedia-l] Tabular data in Wikipedia (Wikispecies -> Wikicommons)
Daniel Mayer
maveric149 at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 24 23:23:50 UTC 2004
--- Anthony DiPierro <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think there is a growing sentiment that people do not want to fork
> Wikipedia to create Wikispecies. This makes a lot of sense. However, there
> is something important that is needed for Wikispecies which Wikipedia does
> not provide: efficient access of tabular data.
Yep.
> Think of what we would want to be able to do with Wikispecies. Yes, the
> simplest of them could be handled by categories, and taxoboxes are a kludgy
> solution to some of the data input, but now what if I want a list of all
> endangered species in the phylum chordata? There's just no efficient way to
> get that information from Wikipedia, even if I have access to the entire
> database dump.
Well that may be true in some cases but your example could be done if the
current category system were extended and an advanced search function added.
Such a search page could be used to SELECT ALL [endangered species] FROM
[Chordates] to RETURN a [Species] list.
In this example [endangered species], [Chordates], and [Species] would all be
categories. However since [endangered species] would be a subcategory of
[Species] there would be no need to have the [Species] category in those
articles. Nor would there be a need to have the [Chordates] category in those
articles since they would all presumably have a sub-sub-sub category of
[Chordates] that indicates wich genus the animal belongs to.
> It is possible that Wikipedia could adapt to handle this type of data, but
> this is a somewhat fundamental shift in the concept of a wiki. We would
> essentially need an open access database, where even the table structure
> itself can be modified, complete with a history mechanism which can somehow
> allow us to revert poorly thought changes.
I think that this will be simpler and more wiki than it first appears.
> There is another benefit to Wikispecies, and it is the same thing we're
> seeing with the proposal of Wikicommons. Species classification information
> is largely language-neutral. It would be nice if we could somehow have a
> single database for all this information, and simply use it on the
> language-specific pages. Once again, this could be done within Wikipedia
> though, and this change would be somewhat less of a fundamental shift. In
> essence, we would simply move the taxoboxes to a common database, in latin,
> and translate into the local language on the fly (regnum->kingdom, etc.).
> There is a bit of coding involved here, but once Wikicommons is properly set
> up a lot of it will already be done.
Putting the taxoboxes in a common database does sound interesting (linking to
the scientific names shouldn't be a big deal since each species/taxon article
should have the scientific name redirected to it). The element tables are very
similar and would also benefit from a common database (sadly there was one
mistake I made that affected about 50 element tables I created but I noticed
and fixed it well-after other language Wikipedias started to copy and translate
those tables).
We also have the same database design problems with interlanguage links, user
accounts, and logins.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list