I think the modified proposal is really nifty. Yes, that's quite the
sort of thing I had in mind. And pinpointing the idea of an
"educational resource" is valuable in helping me describe exactly how
I'm thinking of this project.
To respond to some other people re: spamming. People can already do
that, but they don't, really. I'm going to take the optimistic view and
say this: that I intend only to add sources that I have read or am at
least familiar with, and to accompany the less obvious listings with a
short description. If someone posts a long list of sources with no
explanation, other editors can sift through them, adding commentary,
and removing the ones that seem truly spurious. This is how the rest of
WP works, I don't see that this will be much different.
-F
On Apr 2, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Cormac Lawler wrote:
Hi Finlay,
I think there's real merit to this idea, and, though I understand the
previously mentioned problems of blindly adding books for the sake of
it or adding books for commercial interest, this needn't deter people
from building (and then accessing) a comprehensive bibliography on a
given subject.
I agree this could be done better in Wikipedia in general (though
there are obvious good examples where this *is* done well). But I'm
thinking this could fit quite well with Wikiversity (another proposed
project), which will (amongst other things) assemble a network of
references for further reading on a topic. You can see details for
this project at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal -
though there is much more information on this (something I'm working
on at the moment).
What do you think?
Cormac