Wikisource and Wikipedia mascot: Difference between pages

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
 
Stevertigo (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
Line 1:
[[en:Linux|Linux]] has the [[en:Tux|penguin]]. [[en:MySQL|MySQL]] has the dolphin. O'Reilly has a whole zoo. Every successful open source / open content project seems to have a mascot - so why not [[Wikipedia]]? It could be used in the [[Logo suggestions|logo]], printed on [[Wikipedia T-shirts|T-shirts]] or kept as a housepet. But what should it be? A [[en:fish|fish]], a [[en:bird|bird]], an [[en:Wikipedia:Bug Reports|insect]], a [[en:mammal|mammal]], a [[en:Lawyer|reptile]], a [[en:GPL|virus]]? This page is for collecting ideas. At any time, feel free to express your support for a particular mascot by putting your name under it.
== Handling primary sources, or Project Sourceberg ==
 
It would probably be nice if the mascot somehow represented the [[en:Wikipedia:Self-references spirit | spirit]] of Wikipedia, e.g.:
What to do about primary sources? People like to add them to Wikipedia, but people also are (rightly) disturbed by their presence. Is the answer to enter an arms race in which the Primaryists add and the Pedists (short for Pure Encyclopia-ists) delete?
* social
* massively cooperative
* controversial
 
* chaotic
No.
* growing
* ambitious
* infectious
* curious
 
== Suggested mascots ==
Another problem: people with a firmly held take on a subject can take over entries. This is good if their take is externally supportable and not just an idiosyncratic view. Right now about the only way this can be discovered is through a lot of haggling in the entry and in Talk, though creating related entries that surround a topic also helps. But the best way would be to show references.
This is a race so it is ordered by the current top contender. Add votes to choices lower down so they can move up in the race.
 
===Honey bees===
: suggestion: as long term goal, require two individuals to agree to put something up visible to the public, or take it down making it invisible... make the two enter a joint reason that goes in the log. So, if there are ten reasons to take something down, that's ten reasons that ten individuals can register... but the article stays visible... until one person agrees with one reason, then it comes down... then it sits in "[http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/limbo limbo]" (good name) as a list of reasons to put it back up builds up... say six such reasons arise... it stays down until one person agrees with one of these reasons, and enters it as a joint decision. This must be someone who did not previously register a reason of their own... with this system, we pile up all the reasons why a thing is taken down or put up, and there's a chance to deal with all of it... talk does this informally now, of course...
http://www.honeyflowfarm.com/Images/Honey%20bee.gif
*Rationale: Work cooperatively, have a Queen (Jimbo rules!), collect nectar (collect info), take that back to the hive, and turn that into honey (articles). Very positive symbol. Wikipedia resembles a humming hive of busy workers making something beautiful (honey=free quality information resource). Bees communicate well with each other, and there is some evidence that they work with a type of collective intelligence. The nectar collection also pollinates flowers so that they can reproduce. See [[en:Honeybee]], [http://www.this-magic-sea.com/IMAGES/BEE.GIF], [http://www.ivyhall.district96.k12.il.us/4th/kkhp/1insects/bugpix/beepolen.JPEG]
*Support: [[User:Mahongue|Mahongue]] -- [[User:Yann|Yann]] -- [[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]] (but not the current picture) -- [[User:Elian|Elian]] -- [[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]] (Go WikiBees!) -- [[User:Fantasy|Fantasy]] -- [[User:MarcS|MarcS]] -- [[User:MyRedDice|MyRedDice]] -- [[User:AstroNomer]] (though I don't like very much the particular honeybee now displayed, there should be a second "design" vote) -- [[User:Lorenzarius|Lorenzarius]] (The idea is very good, as the ''WikiBees'' can represent the natures of Wikipedia quite well: lots of hardworking bees gather honey(knowledge) and bring it back to the nest(Wikipedia) to service all the other bees. It would be better if there're more sketches.)
 
===centipede===
I think the long term solution is to make a complementary Wiki (or perhaps namespace) just for handling primary sources/original texts. Maybe it would have the texts, maybe it would just link to external sources. It could be to [[Project Gutenberg]] what Wikipedia is to Nupedia.
(the "Wikipede")
 
Concept by Jay Bowks [http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-February/009183.html on the wikipedia mailing list] (recongnise the "W" shape):
Most important of all, it would allow Wikipedians to easily and specifically reference sources.
*Rationale: Images - [http://pmo.umext.maine.edu/ipddl/centipede.jpg], [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/uniramia/centipede.gif], [http://www.insectsafari.com/insectid/newimages/centipede.jpg]
 
ô¿ô
Maybe it should be called Project Sourceberg.
\ /\ \W/
\/ \/
 
[[Image:Wikipede.jpg]] [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer%3AElian Elian's] version of the Wikipede, (this is a first sketch and can be edited by anyone as required).
==== Project Sourceberg Mission ====
[[w:Image:wikipedesketch1.png]]http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/d/d4/Wikipedesketch1.png - Stevertigo's updated sketch
Allow people to handle primary sources better than currently, so that noone gets upset. Maybe that means provide a repository for primary sources; maybe that means figure out how to improve the Wikipedia interface for linking to outside repositories.
 
*Support: [[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] -- [[en:User:snoyes|snoyes]] -- [[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]] (compare [[en:centipede]] and [[en:millipede]]) -- [[User:Sannse|Sannse]] -- [[User:Elian|Elian]] --- [[User:Enchanter|Enchanter]] -- [[User:Ducker|Ducker]] -- [[User:ILVI|ILVI]] -- [[User:Jazmin|Jazmin]] --
==== Name suggestions ====
*Problems: negative connotations for some (see images above) - drawings are good though. Does not seem to represent cooperative work (a key to wikipedia, see honeybee) --[[User:Mahongue|Mahongue]]
* '''Project Sourceberg''' is a [[w:pun]] on Project Gutenberg whose initials, PS, also stand for Primary Sources (and Post Scriptum). The name deliberately refers to Project Gutenberg so as to forge a connection which will hopefully become strong. Some of the idea was to have a brief acronym (PS) which could also be used in crosslinking with the main Pedia.
*Too creepy for my liking; the "W" isn't all that important, does not represent collaboration. -- [[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
:You haven't seen these things walk, have you? All those legs working together keeping the animal on course. ;-) --[[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]]
::Ok, legs collaborate; I can go with that. But they're still creepy. :) Besides, I think of centipedes in the context of looking under a rock. -- [[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
::: And [[sysop]]s are not also creepy and found under rocks? [[Troll]]s? [[Vandal]]s? Wikipedia appears to be full of [[en:weedy species|weedy species]], for this reason the centipede is very appropriate.
::::Well, centipedes do away with roaches, right? You got to love that! :-) [[User:Jazmin|Jazmin]]
 
I kinda agree with Stephen and Mahongue.. rather see monkeys..-[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]]
:However, as one person asserted, Gutenberg is named after someone, Sourceberg just sounds like someone ran out of ideas (a similar argument applies to wikipedia, but at least that's descriptive). Though it does follow the tradition set by Projekt Runeberg (for Nordic languages).
:The very fact that centipedes are controversial, creepy and the type of thing you find under a rock, IMO, would only ''add'' to the value of the mascot - esp if the mascot is disarmingly cute. This type of contrast, between expectation and realization, is perfect for a Wikipedia mascot (since most people have negative expectations when they hear about Wikipedia but when they see it, most of them drop their negativity). Honey bees would be more Disneyish. --mav
::"Disneyish" is exactly why I've removed my support from Honey bees -- [[User:Ducker|Ducker]]
::OK, I'm updating the Wikipede sketch... -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]]
 
===leaf-cutter ants===
:However, http://ps.wikipedia.com is reserved for the Pushto language Pedia (the language of the Pashtuns of Afghanistan).
*Rationale: collaborative, hard working, strength in numbers. Images - [http://www.antcolony.org/images/Leaf-Cutter_Ants_Carrying_Leaves2.JPG], [http://www.horizontes.com/images/animales/hormigas.gif], [http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/esi/2001/CostaRica/la_selva3/ants3/ants3_images/leafcutterx.JPG] (one ant could be carrying a cut leaf in the shape of a W)
*Support: [[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]] -- [[User:Anthere]] (I can't help it) -- [[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]] -- [[User:Ducker|Ducker]] -- [[User:Nicolas_Delahaye|Nicolas]] (or a regular ant?)
 
===monkey behind a typewriter===
* '''WikiBiblion''' is the name currently being used for a page which lists primary sources already entered into Wikipedia. It would make sense as a name for a project with a more defined misison.
http://pl.wikipedia.org/upload/6/60/Wojpob.jpg
*Rationale: "10,000 monkeys with 10,000 typewriters will never produce Shakespeare" [http://djl.net/newearthmonkey/monkey_using_typewriter_md_clr.gif]
 
*Support: [[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]] [[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] (this just too cool!)
* '''Wiki Sourcetexts''' is another proposal, which could be abbreviated to WST. But WST doesn't make sense on its own.
*Problems: [http://www.wilwheaton.net/index.php Wil Wheaton Dot Net] uses a slogan based on this (although not a logo).
** I doubt Wil will care. -- [[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
** He has actually already endorsed Wikpedia, see [http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/001116.php here].
*** Sure he has, I originally came to Wikipedia by following that very link! My objection was just on the grounds that it's his site that I think of when I think of monkeys and typewriters. But, of course, whatever we choose is likely to be ''somewhere'' else. 'Twas just that this one happens to be one of my favourite sites :) -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] 18:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
** Wheaton is just using the old idea of an infinite number of monkeys working at an infinite number of typewriters banging out a copy of ''Hamlet''. It's used many places. -- [[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
 
''There used to be a monkey logo at [[Logo suggestions--humorous logos]], however the images were stored offsite and have vanished.''
* '''sources.wikipedia.com''' But what would short acronym/abbr. be? "Source"?
:That one, along with most of the others, are back. If anyone has copies of the missing ones, please upload them.
 
I agree strongly with the symbols evocked higher, but this would be so fun I cannont resist to be pro [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur%3AJul Jul]
* '''ref.wikipedia.com''' Reference Electronic Folio
 
===Owl===
* '''viz.wikipedia.com''' Virtual Information Zone?
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Xrx140YOBNwC:www.callawaygardens.com/tosee/bop/images/great-horned-owl.jpg
*Rationale: An old symbol for knowledge and searching for facts. An owl head could easily be integrated in the logotype. Maybe boring but respected and traditional. The eyebrows could form a W shape too.
*Support [[User:Dan Koehl|Dan Koehl]] -- [[User:Elian|Elian]]
*Problems: [http://www.encyclopedia.com Encyclopedia.com] uses a cartoon owl as its logo. Also, owls work alone.
 
===Platypus===
* '''doc.wikipedia.com'''. Maybe someone can come up with a good expansion of DOC.
http://www.julbox.net/platypus.gif (please backup somewhere else)
source : http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/doc/logos/
*Rationale: It most resembles "an animal designed by committee"
*Support: [[User:GUllman|GUllman]], [[User:Sannse|sannse]] (great reason!) it has been one of early proposition for linux :) [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur%3AJul Jul]
*Problems: The [[en:Darwin kernel]] uses a Donald Duck look-alike platypus named [http://www.hexley.com/ Hexley].
 
===meerkat===
*'' {language code}.wikisource.org '' its a sister project do wikipedia and wiktionary sho should hav its own domain name, and have the wiki name in it
*Rationale: Images - [http://www.litopia.com/postcard/pictures/meerkat.jpg], [http://ww2.zoo.nsw.gov.au/zoo.net/pics/meerkat-l.jpg], [http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/sdz2/Meerkat-m.jpg]
=== Necessary features ===
*Support: [[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]] (read why the meerkat would be a great choice [http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-February/009192.html here]), [[User:Cassini|Cassini]]
Wikipedia is designed for anonymous, constant editing, which is great for the accumulative, morphing encyclopedia entries. Project Sourceberg needs to encourage easy additions and corrections but discourage arbitrary editing of the primary texts.
<table align="right"><td><tr>[[Image:Meerkatmascot1small.png]]</tr></td></table>
**[[Stevertigo]] - I like this animal... Kinda racconish, with a lot of weasel in it :) so i did some <h2>[[User:Stevertigo/Meerkat mascot|sketches]]</h2>
 
1. Different interface; maybe three fields, one for prefatory comments, one for the text itself, and one for external references
 
===slime mold===
2. Easy reference/crosslinking to Wikipedia, like with links such as (from Wikipedia) <nowiki>[[ps:The Declaration of Independence]]</nowiki> or (from PS.Wikipedia) <nowiki>[[w:History of the United States]]</nowiki>.
*Rationale:
*Support [[User:Anthere]] (these were too cute...)
 
===Termites===
3. Alternate formats of texts, such as text, HTML, multiple-page HTML, wikified text, etc.
*Rationale : Termites are co-operative animals. In some ways we are like them in our work on the House of Intellectual Property. They are so maligned that there is little chance that anyone has chosen them as a mascot before.
*Support : anthere (that make a lot of sense) -- [[User:Ducker|Ducker]]
*Problems: Termites are known as destroyers, not builders. -- [[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
** I recently found this impressive termite home[http://www.frontiernet.net/~kidpower/MMS/termite1.jpg] which seems to prove the opposite ;-) --[[User:Elian|Elian]]
***Oh sure, termites are ''tremendous'' builders, but that's not commonly associated with them. I simply said they're ''known'' as destroyers. People tend to think of termites infesting buildings rather than building impressive structures. I like to think that Wikipedia is fighting repressive notions of "intellectual properity" by building something better, not by undermining what already exists. -- [[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
 
===Woman===
4. Understanding of scope and mission; we don't want to try to duplicate Project Gutenberg's efforts; rather, we want to complement them. Perhaps Project Sourceberg can mainly work as an interface for easily linking from Wikipedia to a Project Gutenberg file, and as an interface for people to easily submit new work to PG.
*Rationale: 1. Wikipedia's dictator is supposed to be a man, but are we really sure ? ;) 2. Wikipedia is evolving, using the help of many people across the world. 3. Wikipedia is a womb, ready to receive seeds, helps them meet and mix, provides them an environment to grow and flourish, to finally offer the world a new miracle. 4. Use one of those pictures of beautiful pregnant naked Gaia. 3. Wikipedia was named WikipediA not WikipediO, did not that ever occurred to you ?
*Support: The Earth itself
*Problems: Some will be troubled by nudity. Or by pregnancy. Or by plump body; we'd have to figure out a way to draw this tactfully; Men (and women) could disagree with such a matriarchal figure in a rather masculine community. Gaia is likely to be black or close to black, and probably not white; etc...
* Pictures here [http://www.paleothea.com/Pictures/GaiaStatue.jpg 1] and [http://www.paleothea.com/Pictures/GaiaDrawing.jpg 2]
 
:This may bring up some concerns similar to [[Should Wikipedia Use Profanity]]. -[[w:User:Geoffrey]
:I would rather see Wikipedia cooperate very closely with both [[w:Project Gutenberg]] and the [[w:Online Book Initiative]] so we can easily link to their databases. I think that the Wikipedia should have articles about significant original works like [[w:Shakespeare]]. It should include excerpts and an external link to the aforementioned databases where readers can download the entire piece. ''&lt;&gt;&lt; [[w:tbc]]''
 
::You mean a naked man is okay, but a naked woman is profanity ?
5. Project Sourceberg, preferably, would have a content-agnostic layer which would allow any source, from book to LP to website to bumper sticker, to be referenced. That way whatever source material is appropriate to the entry (the [[w:Star Trek]] entry would look different from [[w:Punic Wars]]) could be references.
 
:::Uh...um...give him a cloth around his middle if necessary, but most evolution images have the leg closer to you stepping forward. I think the Woman description implies a woman facing the front, not facing a side as the evolving man would be. -[[w:User:Geoffrey]]
Do we need a standard in how to referer to sources? So that everybody add the information in the same way? For search, compairing and further functions.
:::Speaking as a ''lesbian'', I think naked females are beautiful.---[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]]
 
===Man===
Example:
*Rationale: 1. Wikipedia's created by man. ;) 2. Wikipedia is evolving, using the help of many people across the world. Use one of those pictures of hominids walking across the page and evolving into man. 3. Evolution is controversial, like Wikipedia. All this doesn't satisfy is chaotic and infectious. - We can call him Homo vikip&aelig;dia (after the Latin Wikipedia's title).
:Source: Website, book, music
*Support: [[w:User:Geoffrey|Geoffrey]]
:Place: http://x, page 18, track 12
*Problems: Not very creative in some sense; animals not humans are expected to be mascots; creationists will have problems (unless we also make it look like Adam); we'd have to figure out a way to draw this tactfully; it'd be a male human and would cause problems with women's-rights; it'd likely be white or close to white, and probably not black; etc.
:Date: 2003-01-03
 
*For the record, the [http://www.forpas.us.es/enciclopedia/ Enciclopedia Libre] uses a famous drawing of man as their logo.
A good thing would be to reuse sources too, so that you don't need to write the souce over and over again discussing two things back and forth.
 
:This may bring up some concerns similar to [[Should Wikipedia Use Profanity]].
On top of that layer would be the format-specific tools that would, say, link into Project Gutenberg, etc.
 
===Mice===
''Add your own ideas; be bold in editing.''
*Rationale: There are mice everywhere there are Wikipedians.
*Support: [[User:Aoineko|Aoineko]]
 
=== Getting it going Wikisaurus===
*Rationale: Some kind of Dinosaur thing, fictional creature based on ancient historic creatures, also no one else uses a Wikisaurus.
We could definitely start Project Sourceberg as a plain vanilla Wiki and quickly implement the <nowiki>[[ps:*]]</nowiki> notation, and just begin by moving off the primary sources that are already on Wikipedia, like the Constitution and the GPL.
*Support:
*Problems: This would be a much better mascot for [[Wiktionary]] since the thing that really sets that project apart is that it is a multilingual "Thesaurus" in addition to being a dictionary.
 
=== Related commentary Frog===
*Rationale: Some People like frogs. :-s
''There are numerous other discussions of the primary sources problem, which should be listed below.''
*Support
*Note : Oh yes ? Thanks a lot...
 
===dove and 5 Ws===
Note some primary sources have already been copied to wikipedia; a few are listed at WikiBiblion.
*Rationale: [[Image:DOVE5WS.png]]
Dove being Clich? symbolizing peace etc, 5 Ws standing for Wiki in the 5 populated continents (depending on the reckoning). PS drawing very very crude.
*Support
 
===no word===
=== Why we are reinventing the wheel? ===
Neither the linux's penguin nor the sqls's dolphin have a word. Adding a word... it's no more a mascot.
Larry Sanger, among others, wonders what the point is. Project Gutenberg already exists. What really is the need for having this project?
And internationalization ?
 
[[User:Alvaro]] from the french wikipedia
The short answer is that people are going to add primary sources to Wikipedia, whether some people want them to or not. But Wikipedia isn't well equipped to handle primary sources. So instead of internecine fighting, the community can develop a part of Wikipedia which ''is'' well equipped to handle primary sources.
 
==== Why not just use Project Gutenberg? ====
 
1. It's a lot harder to link to Project Gutenberg than it is to another page in Wikipedia.
 
2. If a person has access to a primary source which isn't on Project Gutenberg, it's a lot easier and faster to add it to Wikipedia than it is to Project Gutenberg.
 
3. Some primary sources really do make sense being in Wikipedia; even paper encyclopedias often contain particularly important or brief primary sources, such as the [[w:Gettysburg Address]] or the [[w:periodic table]].
 
=== How to complement Project Gutenberg ====
If the main reason people are adding primary sources is that it's too hard just to link to Project Gutenberg, then maybe the main purpose of Project Sourceberg
is to work as an interface for easily linking from Wikipedia to a Project Gutenberg file, and as an interface for people to easily submit new work to PG.
 
=== Sundry unincorporated commentary ===
And, like Larry, I'm interested that we think it over to see what we can add to Project Gutenberg. It seems unlikely that primary sources should in general be editable by anyone -- I mean, Shakespeare is Shakespeare, unlike our commentary on his work, which is whatever we want it to be. -- [[w:Jimbo Wales]]
 
Then again, is Shakespeare Shakespeare? There's all the different folio versions, etc. But more the type of editing which would be useful and really great to encourage would be annotation, etc.--not changing the text but wikifying it, etc.
 
I think that we could really create something that was halfway in between PG and WP, that would be useful for both, maybe exploiting the Wiki philosophy for marking up texts in a free-form manner; Project Sourceberg could become a definitive repository for annotated texts.
 
Just an idea. I really think that if we just set up something that links PG to WP in some easy-to-use way, and allow flexibility in how people use those links, remarkable things will happen (that may go beyond the formal scope of either). --TheCunctator
 
I haven't really thought a ''lot'' about this, but I do think there is some use to our having ''some'' primary sources. Even though I helped start it, maybe not Shakespeare. But stuff like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, where the article itself might be longer than the document it's about, it seems that might be a good idea. That could be a rough rule of thumb: it's OK to put a primary source into Wikipedia if the source is shorter than an ideal article, or series of articles, about the source.
 
For this, we don't need a new wiki. We can just use a new namespace! See http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml if you haven't already. --[[LMS]]
 
I'm confused. What does that link mean? Note also that Project Sourceberg isn't necessarily about making a Wiki--it's about helping Wikipedia handle primary sources better, which may involve a wiki, or editing the wikipedia code, or setting up a dialogue with the project gutenberg people. Project Sourceberg is a project, not a technology. --TheCunctator
----
The link is to [[w:Magnus Manske]]'s new beta wiki, which will eventually (we hope) be used to run Wikipedia, and which has "namespace" technology. That can be used to implement the project.
 
A useful implementation of the project would consist simply of Wikipedia's modest collection of primary sources, which doesn't need a name. (Actually, it already has a name--[[WikiBiblion]].) The name "Project Sourceberg" makes it sound as if we're engaged in an ambitious project, comparable to Project Gutenberg. Do you want us to be? I don't want to be. I don't really want to be in the business of uploading zillions of novels, etc., to Wikipedia. The Gettysburg Address is one thing; the complete works of Dickens is quite another. --LMS
 
:I want to be engaged in an ambitious project. If you don't want to, that's fine, as long as you don't rain on my parade. The ambitiousness is in its usefulness, not necessarily its overhead. Perhaps I shouldn't make my PS:PG::WikiP:NuP analogy, because it implies that the only way PS would work is to be comparable to PG. The itch I want to scratch is the problem of usefully integrating primary sources with Wikipedia--right now it's awful, and people are rightly frustrated. If the problem can be fixed with minimal effort, then that's fine. If it takes a lot of effort, then that's fine too.
 
:Part of the point is that even if PS involved the complete works of Dickens, it ''wouldn't be to Wikipedia''. It would be to something else, in a way that would make it very ''useful'' for Wikipedia. --[[w:TheCunctator]]
----
OK, I don't want to rain on your parade. Maybe what's needed is a much clearer statement of what the proposal is, down to nitty-gritty details. --LMS
----
To be frank, the fact that Gutenburg was started in the 70's is reflected by their insistance in vanilla ascii (which makes sense I suppose, for embedded devices and stuff) and the use of a series of mirrors for 50k files. It took me about 10 minutes to find a book by Twain (granted, it will be easier now to find another book). I think Wikipedia has a add to Gutenburg, and perhaps it could be used as a channel for new stuff like Wikipedia is supposed to be for Nupedia. - [[w:Eean]]
 
----
Something is right here: the observation that "sources" don't belong in Wikipedia, but something is very wrong about this idea: Think of what a ''source'' is. For the documents discussed here, the sources are printed documents (e.g., a particular printed edition of Shakespeare's Hamlet). Anything on the Net is a ''copy'' of that source, and has to ''emulate'' its source as closely as possible in order to be useful. For everybody being able to edit the digital copy would be devastating, so Jimbo is right about these things not belonging in any wiki at all. There are hundreds of reliable and useful repositories of digital copies of printed sources on the net already. They are generally called digital libraries and have evolved over the last ten years. One of the biggest is the Making of America (http://moa.umdl.umich.edu/). Project Gutenberg (http://promo.net/pg/) might also be considered one of them, although their bibliographic and textual accuracy is sometimes in question. In order to use any digital library from Wikipedia, it must have useful URLs that can be linked to. Wikipedia can already use fully qualified URLs, but it would also be easy to implement a shorthand, similar to the ISBN style links, e.g. gutenberg: followed by the text's serial number. Starting a separate project for this is a major undertaking and if somebody wants to do that, they should know they can finish it.--[[user:LA2]], March 1, 2002.
----
I ([[user:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]) have some hurriedly scribbled notes in my notebook along these lines. Here they are:
 
== Introductions ==
The idea of using such a project to provide an easy way to link to texts ''from'' Wikipedia seems backwards to me. What if this project's goal was to link source texts ''to'' Wikipedia articles? A long time ago, someone started importing Darwin's ''The Origin of Species'' into Wikipedia, and I was quite excited about that. Imagine being able to quickly and easily cross-reference concepts in such a source text with relevant encyclopedia articles! LaterI came to the conclusion that such sources do not really belong in an editable encyclopedia. I would like to see a project that focuses on editing and linking texts to Wikipedia. I'll refer to it by the name of '''The SourceLink Project''', because I don't like the name '''Project Sourceberg''' (Sorry Cunc!).
 
== Overview ==
SourceLink would use a wiki (let's call it SourceLinkWiki) to edit and link the texts to Wikipedia articles. SourceLinkWiki wouldbe completely separate from Wikipedia Proper, acting as a sister project, using modified wiki software that allowed easy linking to Wikipedia. I see a text going through two stages:
# '''Live''' -- All sources would start out in the wiki, where they are edited and linked to Wikipedia. This would be the development stage of the project.
# '''Frozen''' -- Once a text reaches a completed state, with appropriate links, a frozen version is made. This would be the version that the project promotes as being stable and safe to use (i.e. no one can change the words in it, and it has been thoroughly edited). Once a text is frozen, we may want to lock it on the wiki as well, or we could keep it live. I'm not sure which would be better.
 
People could access the frozen texts online, or they could be downloaded. Downloadable texts would be in two forms. One would be with live links to Wikipedia online, while the other would have snapshots of the linked Wikipedia articles bundled with the texts.
 
== Benefits ==
* SourceLink would would provide a way to wikify sources without having to put them in the encyclopedia. People are obviously interested in this, since it has been a big issue on Wikipedia more than once.
* SourceLink could act as a bridge between Project Gutenberg and Wikipedia, establishing closer ties between the two projects. There is the potential to promote enormous cross-pollination between Wikipedia, PG and SourceLink:
** The materials produced by PG would be put to good use, providing easy cross-referencing to background encyclopedia articles.
** Since SourceLink texts will be linked to Wikipedia, people following the links may become regular Wikipedians. Also, if important concepts are linked from a source but there is no Wikipedia article for them, or the article is shoddy, SourceLink participants may contribute articles to improve the linked text.
** SourceLink could act as an extra layer of editing for PG, contributing correct texts back to the project.
 
Comments and discussion are more than welcome. --[[user:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
 
----
I've been interested in figuring out how to build a wiki for the
study of religion, in my case its related to the Vedas and the
Upanisads.
 
Numerous "source texts" are available in the public domain, The
complete vedas, upanisads and the vedanta-sutras amongst others
are available in eText format, besides I've been working with [[Distributed
Proofreaders]] and the Internet Sacred Texts Archive to get a few
more books (dozen or so) online and into [[Project Guttenberg]].
 
Stephen Gilbert's comments above made a lot of sense to me since
There would most probably need to be a source section,(which allows wiki
tike editing in the development phase - by a select few -- and than is frozen)
a protected section for the interpretations of various doctrines by
respected scholars and a more open community section for
discussion, current links to available resouces (books etc.)
 
I am sure many of you may have thought about this, if anyone
could share comments/suggestions or point me to previous
discussions that would be great.
[[User:Ajiva rts|Ajiva rts]] 00:13 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
 
----
I would not wish to edit the text of a primary source. When a source text can and will be changed, it loses credibility - and therefore its usefulness as a primary source. As well, primary source authors (past and present) would not want their names and credentials attached to works which might have been modified.
 
However, I am very interested in:
* Annotating and footnoting the primary sources
* Enabling source text to become a link (without changing the wording)
* Wiki to discuss the texts, compare the texts
* Allowing longer commentaries and papers to be presented and discussed.
 
Projects such as Project Gutenberg provide the raw material like a brick without mortar. Wiki is an excellent mortar - it's inherent strength is the ability to relate, compare, link, discuss. Some people's whole scholarship revolves around a particular text or author, and they can provide valuable background information in a way not possible without the actual text being present.
 
Could Project Sourceberg therefore wrap a flexible wiki community around core static primary source material? That would be far beyond the capabilities of Project Gutenberg as it now stands. Yet it would satisfy the wiki community, who long to make connections with that rich treasure trove of information.
 
The beauty of that kind of structure is that an esteemed researcher but reluctant contributor can protect their work to a limited degree, and yet still have it discussed, linked, and analysed in an open wiki environment.
 
- Ig
 
Maybe for instance, disable everything but square brackets in edit mode?
 
- Ig again
 
----
 
: study vs research : The thought occurs to me - Wikipedians want a simple wikipowered quick reference study tool. Sourcebergians want a simple wikipowered ''research'' tool. In others words, sourcebergians wish to do real open source research with unrestricted peer support, feedback, debate and editing help in a wiki environment. Seen in that light, the sourceberg project is rather exciting.
 
Therefore, an environment which supports contrasting argument, fact-finding missions, idea gathering, comparitive studies would be ideal for a sourceberg wiki, rather than a wikipedia which is more about presenting common knowledge or ''facts''.
 
- Ig
 
----
 
Ig, I am actively working on trying something like this i.e. wikis for study, do email me and we can share ideas. [[User:Ajiva rts|Ajiva rts]] 16:08 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:18, 3 March 2003

Linux has the penguin. MySQL has the dolphin. O'Reilly has a whole zoo. Every successful open source / open content project seems to have a mascot - so why not Wikipedia? It could be used in the logo, printed on T-shirts or kept as a housepet. But what should it be? A fish, a bird, an insect, a mammal, a reptile, a virus? This page is for collecting ideas. At any time, feel free to express your support for a particular mascot by putting your name under it.

It would probably be nice if the mascot somehow represented the spirit of Wikipedia, e.g.:

  • social
  • massively cooperative
  • controversial
  • chaotic
  • growing
  • ambitious
  • infectious
  • curious

Suggested mascots

This is a race so it is ordered by the current top contender. Add votes to choices lower down so they can move up in the race.

Honey bees

http://www.honeyflowfarm.com/Images/Honey%20bee.gif

  • Rationale: Work cooperatively, have a Queen (Jimbo rules!), collect nectar (collect info), take that back to the hive, and turn that into honey (articles). Very positive symbol. Wikipedia resembles a humming hive of busy workers making something beautiful (honey=free quality information resource). Bees communicate well with each other, and there is some evidence that they work with a type of collective intelligence. The nectar collection also pollinates flowers so that they can reproduce. See en:Honeybee, [1], [2]
  • Support: Mahongue -- Yann -- Stephen Gilbert (but not the current picture) -- Elian -- Maveric149 (Go WikiBees!) -- Fantasy -- MarcS -- MyRedDice -- User:AstroNomer (though I don't like very much the particular honeybee now displayed, there should be a second "design" vote) -- Lorenzarius (The idea is very good, as the WikiBees can represent the natures of Wikipedia quite well: lots of hardworking bees gather honey(knowledge) and bring it back to the nest(Wikipedia) to service all the other bees. It would be better if there're more sketches.)

centipede

(the "Wikipede")

Concept by Jay Bowks on the wikipedia mailing list (recongnise the "W" shape):

      ô¿ô
\  /\ \W/  
 \/  \/

File:Wikipede.jpg Elian's version of the Wikipede, (this is a first sketch and can be edited by anyone as required). w:Image:wikipedesketch1.pnghttp://www.wikipedia.org/upload/d/d4/Wikipedesketch1.png - Stevertigo's updated sketch

You haven't seen these things walk, have you? All those legs working together keeping the animal on course. ;-) --Maveric149
Ok, legs collaborate; I can go with that. But they're still creepy. :) Besides, I think of centipedes in the context of looking under a rock. -- Stephen Gilbert
And sysops are not also creepy and found under rocks? Trolls? Vandals? Wikipedia appears to be full of weedy species, for this reason the centipede is very appropriate.
Well, centipedes do away with roaches, right? You got to love that! :-) Jazmin

I kinda agree with Stephen and Mahongue.. rather see monkeys..-Stevertigo

The very fact that centipedes are controversial, creepy and the type of thing you find under a rock, IMO, would only add to the value of the mascot - esp if the mascot is disarmingly cute. This type of contrast, between expectation and realization, is perfect for a Wikipedia mascot (since most people have negative expectations when they hear about Wikipedia but when they see it, most of them drop their negativity). Honey bees would be more Disneyish. --mav
"Disneyish" is exactly why I've removed my support from Honey bees -- Ducker
OK, I'm updating the Wikipede sketch... -Stevertigo

leaf-cutter ants

monkey behind a typewriter

http://pl.wikipedia.org/upload/6/60/Wojpob.jpg

  • Rationale: "10,000 monkeys with 10,000 typewriters will never produce Shakespeare" [9]
  • Support: Maveric149 Chuck SMITH (this just too cool!)
  • Problems: Wil Wheaton Dot Net uses a slogan based on this (although not a logo).
    • I doubt Wil will care. -- Stephen Gilbert
    • He has actually already endorsed Wikpedia, see here.
      • Sure he has, I originally came to Wikipedia by following that very link! My objection was just on the grounds that it's his site that I think of when I think of monkeys and typewriters. But, of course, whatever we choose is likely to be somewhere else. 'Twas just that this one happens to be one of my favourite sites :) -- sannse 18:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Wheaton is just using the old idea of an infinite number of monkeys working at an infinite number of typewriters banging out a copy of Hamlet. It's used many places. -- Stephen Gilbert

There used to be a monkey logo at Logo suggestions--humorous logos, however the images were stored offsite and have vanished.

That one, along with most of the others, are back. If anyone has copies of the missing ones, please upload them.

I agree strongly with the symbols evocked higher, but this would be so fun I cannont resist to be pro Jul

Owl

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Xrx140YOBNwC:www.callawaygardens.com/tosee/bop/images/great-horned-owl.jpg

  • Rationale: An old symbol for knowledge and searching for facts. An owl head could easily be integrated in the logotype. Maybe boring but respected and traditional. The eyebrows could form a W shape too.
  • Support Dan Koehl -- Elian
  • Problems: Encyclopedia.com uses a cartoon owl as its logo. Also, owls work alone.

Platypus

http://www.julbox.net/platypus.gif (please backup somewhere else) source : http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/doc/logos/

  • Rationale: It most resembles "an animal designed by committee"
  • Support: GUllman, sannse (great reason!) it has been one of early proposition for linux :) Jul
  • Problems: The en:Darwin kernel uses a Donald Duck look-alike platypus named Hexley.

meerkat

    • Stevertigo - I like this animal... Kinda racconish, with a lot of weasel in it :) so i did some


slime mold

Termites

  • Rationale : Termites are co-operative animals. In some ways we are like them in our work on the House of Intellectual Property. They are so maligned that there is little chance that anyone has chosen them as a mascot before.
  • Support : anthere (that make a lot of sense) -- Ducker
  • Problems: Termites are known as destroyers, not builders. -- Stephen Gilbert
    • I recently found this impressive termite home[13] which seems to prove the opposite ;-) --Elian
      • Oh sure, termites are tremendous builders, but that's not commonly associated with them. I simply said they're known as destroyers. People tend to think of termites infesting buildings rather than building impressive structures. I like to think that Wikipedia is fighting repressive notions of "intellectual properity" by building something better, not by undermining what already exists. -- Stephen Gilbert

Woman

  • Rationale: 1. Wikipedia's dictator is supposed to be a man, but are we really sure ?  ;) 2. Wikipedia is evolving, using the help of many people across the world. 3. Wikipedia is a womb, ready to receive seeds, helps them meet and mix, provides them an environment to grow and flourish, to finally offer the world a new miracle. 4. Use one of those pictures of beautiful pregnant naked Gaia. 3. Wikipedia was named WikipediA not WikipediO, did not that ever occurred to you ?
  • Support: The Earth itself
  • Problems: Some will be troubled by nudity. Or by pregnancy. Or by plump body; we'd have to figure out a way to draw this tactfully; Men (and women) could disagree with such a matriarchal figure in a rather masculine community. Gaia is likely to be black or close to black, and probably not white; etc...
  • Pictures here 1 and 2
This may bring up some concerns similar to Should Wikipedia Use Profanity. -[[w:User:Geoffrey]
You mean a naked man is okay, but a naked woman is profanity ?
Uh...um...give him a cloth around his middle if necessary, but most evolution images have the leg closer to you stepping forward. I think the Woman description implies a woman facing the front, not facing a side as the evolving man would be. -w:User:Geoffrey
Speaking as a lesbian, I think naked females are beautiful.---Stevertigo

Man

  • Rationale: 1. Wikipedia's created by man. ;) 2. Wikipedia is evolving, using the help of many people across the world. Use one of those pictures of hominids walking across the page and evolving into man. 3. Evolution is controversial, like Wikipedia. All this doesn't satisfy is chaotic and infectious. - We can call him Homo vikipædia (after the Latin Wikipedia's title).
  • Support: Geoffrey
  • Problems: Not very creative in some sense; animals not humans are expected to be mascots; creationists will have problems (unless we also make it look like Adam); we'd have to figure out a way to draw this tactfully; it'd be a male human and would cause problems with women's-rights; it'd likely be white or close to white, and probably not black; etc.
This may bring up some concerns similar to Should Wikipedia Use Profanity.

Mice

  • Rationale: There are mice everywhere there are Wikipedians.
  • Support: Aoineko

Wikisaurus

  • Rationale: Some kind of Dinosaur thing, fictional creature based on ancient historic creatures, also no one else uses a Wikisaurus.
  • Support:
  • Problems: This would be a much better mascot for Wiktionary since the thing that really sets that project apart is that it is a multilingual "Thesaurus" in addition to being a dictionary.

Frog

  • Rationale: Some People like frogs. :-s
  • Support
  • Note : Oh yes ? Thanks a lot...

dove and 5 Ws

Dove being Clich? symbolizing peace etc, 5 Ws standing for Wiki in the 5 populated continents (depending on the reckoning). PS drawing very very crude.

  • Support

no word

Neither the linux's penguin nor the sqls's dolphin have a word. Adding a word... it's no more a mascot. And internationalization ? User:Alvaro from the french wikipedia