[Wikipedia-l] RE: start wikispecies

[Benedikt Mandl]

I support your idea and think it is the most sensible thing to do at the 
current point. For the interface: Gerard will provide a table with data 
that we could play on. I can provide webspace of about 45 MB and the 
domain of www.wikispecies.org.

The earlier we have an initial interface and something like a trial-
version, the better. Any pho-people who want to try it?

Benedikt

> I understand Mav's reservations, even though I'm for a wikispecies.  Why
> don't we simply have a trial w-species on that wikispecies.org site, try
> out
> a few interface designs, and back-end stuff, and see if it'll work?  
That
> way, it won't be a wikiproject, but it will still exist and let people 
use
> it, see if it's popular/used enough, and if it gets the go-ahead from
> Media-Wiki, move whatever was done over to Media-Wiki.
> 
> James 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benedikt Mandl
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:07 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!
> 
> > --- Benedikt Mandl <benedikt.mandl at gmx.at> wrote:
> > > The defined target refered to the question whether wikispecies 
> > > should
> > cover
> > > all species that were described or not. It would be wonderful if 
> > > this
> > was
> > > possible, but yet it is too big of a project to define - others have
> > done
> > > that before and failed (see the busted http://www.all-species.org/).
> > > 
> >Daniel Mayer wrote: 
> > OKay - you first state that others have tried and failed. 
> 
> Great - then let's have a look why "ALL species" failed:
> 1.) They started with a lot of noise, collected a lot of money and 
several
> people as full term staff
> 2.) They rented offices as head quarters and hired experts to do some
> programming for a search engine
> 3.) They wasted money on meetings, conventions and media events without
> realising that they were - due to their organisational structure - 
totally
> dependent on financial confidence
> 4.) The donations decreased after the dot-com crash
> 5.) Their targets were simply insane - a website for every existing
> species
> within a human generation sounds nice in "New Scientist", but lacks of
> feasibility
> 6.) They busted - much ado about nothing
> 
> I don't see any mistake that Wikispecies would make in a similar manner.
> Another thing we can learn from www.all-species.org: there is a whole 
list
> of the most eminent taxonomists, all of them supporting the idea of a
> central database of species, indicating an urgent need for that. They 
all
> took on the patronage (whatever that means in "ALL species" terms). Mav:
> HOW
> MANY OF THEM DO YOU THINK SUPPORT A GENERAL ENCYCLOPEDIA? How many of 
them
> already support the ToL in public?
> 
> We need a seperat approach to the species project in addition to
> wikipedia.
> This is the only way to attract specialist authors and users. Mav, you
> made
> it clear that you don't like wikispecies. Many other people disagree 
with
> you and I think you should respect their wish for a wikispecies without
> coming up with inappropriate brabbling about a "war".
> 
> Benedikt
> 
> --
> NEU: Bis zu 10 GB Speicher f|r e-mails & Dateien!
> 1 GB bereits bei GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> 

-- 
NEU: Bis zu 10 GB Speicher für e-mails & Dateien!
1 GB bereits bei GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail