Ray-
Erik Moeller wrote:
I propose that
the current Project Sourceberg is integrated into a larger
"Wikimedia Commons".
I fail to see the purpose for this.
The goal of Wikisource is to be a text respository. Text is only a subset
of the larger group of media, and there is no reason to have a specific
repository exclusively for text and a combined repository for other media.
Either they should all be combined or they should all be split up.
I believe combining them is the more useful approach, because:
- There is often a transparent transition from text to other types of
media
- The requirements are very similar in terms of standards for inclusion,
licensing etc.
- A larger project will benefit from a larger community where people who
have previously only dealt in images will also help with the annotation
and proofreading of text, and vice versa.
- In terms of marketing and attracting newcomers, it is much easier to get
people to join a larger project; the more interesting content there is,
the more motivation there will be to participate. Someone might come to
the site to get an MP3 but get hooked on Goethe in the process of finding
it.
For the same reason I don't want Wikipedia to be split into a "mathematics
encyclopedia", an "encyclopedia of fictional worlds", an "encyclopedia
of
Internet terms", I believe a true commons of all forms of media makes more
sense than an artificial split that would be more the result of our
project history than a logical separation.
> For texts, modification rights would also
> be a requirement.
There is no legal restriction to modifying public
domain texts, but it
would be good to have a reasonably stable semi-protected version of a
text so that the reader could rely on its accuracy.
This problem can be addressed by using the Meatball principle of
FileReplacement:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FileReplacement
You would have two edit boxes, but one would not actually be an edit box,
it would just show the document source. The document source would be
automatically replaced with whatever is in the edit box if either a) a
sysop pushes a button, b) the article has remained "idle" for a certain
time, e.g. 24 hours, and the changes are therefore believed to be
acceptable.
> There would be NO fair use material on
>
commons.wikimedia.org.
That's an extremist position.
Hardly. I am the person who most actively spoke out in favor of fair use
on the mailing list and elsewhere, and I implemented the current fair use
policy on Wikipedia. The reason there would be no fair use material on the
commons site is that we cannot assume such material to be legally usable
for all Wikimedia projects. We would still allow fair use on the projects
which currently allow it, but files would be uploaded locally instead of
to the commons. This approach has numerous advantages.
> if a file is highly referenced
> from the outside and causes unbearable bandwith costs, it can be removed.
> The larger and more popular a file, the more pressing needs to be its
> rationale for inclusion.
This seems like a self-defeating approach
How so?
I don't mind this, but before this can work
effectively we need to have
the unified log-in issue solved.
Not necessarily, we can implement the Commons without single sign-on
(which is a large undertaking because of article histories, dupes,
different domain names etc.). When you upload a file, the server would
authenticate you to the Commons, where you would be identified e.g. as
"Ray@Simple-Wikipedia". This would be the name showing up on the Commons
recent changes page and the Simple recent changes page (the latter
possibly suppressed through a checkbox).
Sometimes it's difficult to know whether
illustrations may be used in
one project only.
As I said, when in doubt, material should go to the commons.
These are all fine, but we still don't have a
functioning system for
categorization, so that should be developed first to the point where
people are comfortable using it in at least one live project.
Agreed.
> - People will upload all sorts of things which we
don't want. We can fix
> that the same way we deal with Wikipedia articles we don't want.
Smaller projects tend to do this better, and with less
animosity.
Less animosity is certainly true because there are less people involved,
but I see no evidence that the standards that develop are better as well.
To the contrary, the more people are involved, the more likely there will
be an ongoing refinement of our standards based on user input. For
example, the Wikipedia inclusion standards are quite sophitisticated and
useful.
The big advantage of smaller projects is that they can
develop their own
ways of dealing with problems.
I fail to see how being part of the Wikimedia Commons would no longer
allow you to develop "your own ways" of dealing with problems. You are
setting up a false dichotomy between the Wikimedia community at large and
Wikisource, in fact you actually speak of a "hostile takeover".
I do not understand where this assumption of hostility comes from and find
it quite puzzling. Is that an attitude shared by other members of the
Wikisource project?
It was always my understanding that we were part of a larger undertaking
that transcends individual projects - hence the Wikimedia Foundation -,
and if it makes logical sense to combine certain efforts, we should do so.
Creating a global commons of free media certainly seems like a worthwhile
goal.
All best,
Erik