[Foundation-l] re: Project Wikineur

Tue Feb 1 23:51:01 UTC 2005

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:16:09 +0200, Gavin Chait <gchait at gmx.net> wrote:
> When I go to a library, I don't ask for a book.  I ask for books on a
> specific subject.  When I go to a university, I don't just ask to do a
> degree.  I get one in a specific subject.  The whole basis of education is
> "subject-specific works".  That is how universities divide themselves up:
> different schools run independently but under the broad "brand" of a single
> institution.
> 
> The Wiki Foundation is your broad brand.
> 
> If Wikibooks is "a place to build just about any non-fiction reference book
> with, and this is critical, a finite end size (if you want to explore a
> subject area in more detail than that, start other books). The 'finite' part
> excludes potentially huge or even practically infinitely-sized things such
> as a general quote book, dictionary, or encyclopedia."  There is immediately
> an exclusion since there are, potentially, an infinite number of different
> types of businesses.  Take a walk down any main street in even the smallest
> town and the number of different businesses present runs into the hundreds.
> 
> I'm also not too sure about "They have limited potential in terms of both
> readers and participation." 

By this line of reasoning, you could argue that any subject-specific
work deserves its own project. I'm not arguing that a business wiki
along these lines is inherently a bad idea - just that it's most
unsuitable for a seperate project under the Wikimedia banner. As I
said previously, I think it could well be suited to setting up an
installation of MediaWiki (the open-source software that runs all the
Wikimedia projects) on a business website. Or, alternatively, you
could do as that paragraph says, and just create a second book when
necessary.

Virtually any literate person is capable of adding material to
Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikiquote, or Wikisource. Wiktionary has similar
general appeal, if not so complete, and many people can edit Wikibooks
due to its diverse nature. It's these projects, with their diverse
appeal, that are Wikimedia's mainstay. This just isn't the case with
*any* of these subject-specific works. It's also interesting to note
that arguably the two least successful projects at this point -
Wiktionary and Wikibooks (and the complete failure of Wikispecies,
which I don't even count) - are those that perhaps not everyone is
capable of adding material to.

I wish you luck with this - be it at Wikibooks or Wikicities, but I
will strongly oppose this project becoming one of Wikimedia's.
Wikispecies was an abomination, and I'm determined to do my best to
see that the mistake isn't repeated.

-- ambi