[Wikipedia-l] Re: Proposal: commons.wikimedia.org

Sun Mar 21 04:55:37 UTC 2004

Michael Snow wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>I can see how the misinterpretation of 
>>"Commons" that you cite might arise , but the image that it evoked from 
>>me was quite different, and is based on a meaning of "Commons" that has 
>>been around for much longer:  the town square where everyone comes 
>>together to share what unites them.
>>
> Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of 
> course. But why invite confusion, especially if we include things 
> under CC licenses, as Erik's proposal would allow? Better to have a 
> distinct name that causes no misunderstandings. Since the commons is 
> land for the use of the whole community, how about the equivalent in 
> water? i.e. "Wikimedia Reservoir". The original sense of "source" is 
> water-based, too.

For the time being I will consider "Wikimedia Commons" as a provisional 
working title for Erik's proposal.  I don't really have strong feelings 
about the name.  My concern in this debate has been primarily with the 
preservation of the Wikisource project.  The "Wikimedia Pool" could be 
interesting, and "Wikimedia Matrix" would certainly get people 
wondering! :-)

Erik's footnote on another message is informative

>I actually typed "wikisource" without thinking, referring to wiki  
>source code, not to the Wikisource project. I think that illustrates my  
>point about the name being ambiguous nicely.
>
These different interpretations of "source" do indeed speak to a clash 
of visions.  A non-techie would seldom think in terms of source "code". 
 As a practising bibliomaniac it's more natural for me to think of 
sources in terms of what I might find in old bookstores.

>>  I'm not terribly familiar with the activity on 
>>> Wikisource, but if Ec thinks the commons project would just compete 
>>> with it, he's in a good position to know. Why should we dissipate our 
>>> energy on setting up duelling projects?
>>
>>"Compete" does not exactly describe my concern.  It's more a clash of 
>>visions.
>>
> (Ray Saintonge also wrote:)
>
>> Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor 
>> of Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a 
>> competitor of Project Sourceberg.
>
............................Oops! did I really say it that way?  I meant 
Project Gutenberg. :-[

> This statement from your previous post was part of the reason I 
> expressed myself as I did. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
>
>>Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.
>>
> This I would wholeheartedly endorse. For me personally, and I know of 
> others, the biggest thing that inhibits participating in multiple 
> Wikimedia projects is the nuisance (mixed with a little laziness) of 
> having to log in separately to each one.

If the WC (pun noted but not originally intended), as a totally new 
project were to initiate the unified log-in from the beginning it would 
not have new ambiguities of its own, and could at least stop the 
situation from getting worse.  It could begin by making sure that anyone 
joining that project either tranfers his existing name or chooses a new 
name that does not conflict with a name that already exists on any of 
the projects.  As the family of projects grows delaying a solution to 
this issue only gives it a chance to get worse.

Ec