On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 07:02, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: > Or we could just leave the sister projects alone. That is also a viable > option. > > For the English projects, clear separation between the projects is > necessary so that they can grow different cultures. The sister > projects are progressing nicely enough. > > It is much easier to tell a potential transcriber about the Wikisource > project, as opposed to trying to warn them about all the policies of > Wikipedia, most of which have no bearing on transcribing.
There are two types of Wikimedia projects: those which could be reasonably treated as extensions of Wikipedia and those which couldn't be. For example, Wiktionary (as it is presently) and Wikibooks are obvious extensions of Wikipedia: If you need shorter definitions, more philological than encyclopedic, you would put that in the form of dictionary. If you need to write in depth about some topic, you would use the form of book. Wikisource and Wikiversity couldn't be treated as an extension of Wikipedia, as they assume a type of work different from Wikipedia: Wikisource gathers texts as they are, while Wikiversity has to question even basic principles of Wikipedia, as it indents to be an academic project. Wikinews is in the middle. Creating news have different dynamics from creating the articles, but Wikipedians are keeping news up to date, although it is not the primary purpose of Wikipedia. So, a small community could benefit from having Wiktionary and Wikibooks inside of their Wikipedia. At the other side, the same community would benefit more if it has technological and methodological support from Multilingual Wikisource. LangCom's proposal is on that line, but I am not sure has it been verbalized publicly. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
