[Wikipedia-l] Tabular data in Wikipedia (Wikispecies -> Wikicommons)
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.
> 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
We also have the same database design problems with interlanguage links, user
accounts, and logins.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the Wikipedia-l