On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Tisza Gergő<[email protected]> wrote: > Nemo_bis <nemow...@...> writes: >> See >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/aug/21/encyclopedia-life-species >> Where's the problem with Wikispecies? >> Moreover, EOL received 33.000 images from individual contributors >> (http://www.flickr.com/groups/encyclopedia_of_life), Wikispecies didn't. >> So, why is EOL succeeding, and Wikispecies seemingly doesn't? > > EOL is an encyclopedia, Wikispecies is just a raw taxonomy, which is totally > useless to the average reader. It is also useless to most readers interested > in > taxonomies, because it lacks the software features to extract that. It is in a > similar position to Wiktionary: a project about relations between things that > totally lacks the concept of relations on the software level. That is like > publishing text in the form of JPG files. If you are one of the few people > specifically interested in taxonomies, you will probably use something that > allows you to query and extract the relational data.
While the wiki software layer is very basic, we have many complex tools on our toolserver. Here is a small sample of the projects which run on the toolserver. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toolserver/Projects If you can specify what queries you are most interested in, the technical group may be able to write a tool to do this. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
