On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Nemo_bis<nemow...@gmail.com> wrote: > John Vandenberg, 26/08/2009 12:07: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Steven Walling<steven.wall...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Very good question. I'd say two major factors: >>> 1. Support from scientists. Founded by one of the best-known scientists >>> alive, the EOL automatically gained support from the biological sciences in >>> academia. Support from the scientific/academic community is the only reason >>> their largely single-author system has flourished in my opinion. >> >> Why cant we have this? > > I think that at this point we can't hope to do better than EOL, so «If > you can't beat them join them»: we should evaluate if and how much > Wikispecies (and Commons, which has great pictures of many species) can > contribute to EOL content (the main problem here can be that they're > mainly CC-BY while we are CC-BY-SA, but their licenses are very flexible > – even too much, indeed). > Wikispecies could benefit of a "jump on the bandwagon" effect.
Wikispecies has recently built a partnership with the open access academic journal ZooKeys, which has a partnership with EOL and GBIF. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/ZooKeys https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/species/wiki/Wikispecies:Collaboration_with_ZooKeys http://pensoftonline.net/zookeys/index.php/journal/announcement/view/6 http://www.gbif.org/News/NEWS1243931673 The partnership with ZooKeys results in images of new discoveries being uploaded by the journal to Commons! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_ZooKeys This is _very_cool_. Sadly there are no reliable sources picking up this story, and I can't see any blogging about it either. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
