[Wikipedia-l] Re: Huge misunderstanding which arose from miscommunication
wikipedia at mirko-thiessen.de
Thu Sep 16 08:03:42 UTC 2004
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> One question:
> Is the level of detail in this article:
> appropriate for Wikipedia? Or would it be better to have such an article
> in a
> Wikigeology project? I would certainly hate to see similarly detailed
> of ...]] articles not be created for species in Wikipedia because the
> content is in Wikispecies. Or worse, for them to exist in both and thus
> the contributor base working on each of them.
I realise that there is still a misunderstanding what Wikispecies would
look like. This is not about having articles which would be too special
for Wikipedia. This is (at least how I understand it) about having a
species directory containing raw data. For example, an entry for the
European Grass Snake could be structured this way:
Scientific name: Natrix natrix
Vernacular names: European Grass Snake (en), Ringelnatter (de), Ringslang
(nl), Snog (da)...
Author: (Linnaeus 1758)
Synonymes: Coluber natrix, Natrix vulgaris, Coluber scutatus...
Subspecies: Natrix natrix astreptophora, Natrix natrix cetti, Natrix
Containing clades: Colubridae - Serpentes - Squamata
Distribution: Europe, North Africa, West Asia
More info: [[de:Ringelnatter]], [[nl:Ringslang]], [[da:Snog (Natrix
That's it. The textual info remains in Wikipedia and is not duplicated.
The aim is having a searchable database of every known species, with data
that is mainly interesting for biologists.
I hope I could solve some misunderstandings. Nobody wants to create
another Wikipedia containing Biology articles. That is at least my
understanding (not knowing if I speak for everyone interested in the
Wikispecies project, of course).
See here (http://www.sp2000.org/AnnualChecklist.html) how a taxonomic
database may look like.
More information about the Wikipedia-l