On Monday 22 January 2007 18:39, Nathan Hawks wrote:
> My $0.02...
>
> WikiMedia/ Creative Commons is just about the only publishing option
> available unless y'all want to pursue licensing from all the sources
> e.g. the BBC and other original creators of the stuff you're compiling.

Yeah. Having just reread the Wikimedia license, after my last post, I realised
that actually, it's not as unsuitable for print versions as I'd thought.
Though it would appear that by including information from Wikipedia, we'd
have to have quite a lot of names on the title page.

> I think it's a great idea to publish under the CC copyleft.

I'm not sure which one that is.

> Is this project going to / or currently / tie in with d20? Maybe issue
> a statement of purpose so the lurkers might see what they've been
> lurking for :)

If somebody is willing to do the work required to generate the stats, then
definitely yes. If not, then it will still be a useful source of information
for d20 players.

> That'll be two cents, please :)

Hm. Can I send you one pound's worth of monopoly money instead? ;)

> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 17:59 +0000, Stephen Gray wrote:
> > On Monday 22 January 2007 12:57, Alexander Dante wrote:
> > > --- In whoconcord@..., "bouncelot" <bouncelot@...>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > I just wanted to ask if anybody is still here, and interested in
> > > > furthering this project. It appears that it's all gone pretty
> >
> > dead.
> >
> > > > Anyway, I was considering replacing the Whoniverse database thing
> > >
> > > with
> > >
> > > > a Wiki, as it might encourage people to take part a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > Any opinions? Should I set up a poll to ask the question?
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Gray
> > >
> > > I'm still editing and adding entries sporadically, but I've had next
> > > to no feedback from people while doing so - this group seems to be
> > > more of a watch and look group than one where there is a large
> >
> > amount
> >
> > > of debate, which is a pity.
> > >
> > > Given that the Doctor Who Wikipedia project has a very active group,
> > > turning the database into a wiki might be a duplication of effort.
> >
> > The
> >
> > > big difference between us and them, as I see it, is that we embrace
> > > the Expanded Universe whereas they try and focus on TV canon.
> >
> > The other difference is that we aim to catalogue absolutely
> > everything, and
> > they only catalogue major parts of the series' mythos. So we would
> > have a
> > page for a minor character who only appears in one story, whereas they
> > would
> > only reference that character in the cast list/synopsis for that
> > story.
> >
> > The idea of turning the database into a wiki isn't to change its
> > purpose or
> > content, but simply to make it a lot easier to entice people to
> > contribute.
> > It's more a change of interface than a change of style or substance.
> >
> > > It might be worth discussing this with Terence Chua/khaosworks who I
> > > think leads the wiki project, to see how to link and
> >
> > cross-reference.
> >
> > > An Expanded Universe Wiki inside Whoniverse could be based on the
> >
> > work
> >
> > > they have already done, but be expanded on.
> > >
> > > Their disclaimer "the canonicity of spin-off media is uncertain"
> >
> > could
> >
> > > then be turned into an Expanded Universe link.
> > >
> > > AD
> >
> > Hm, I'd say that it's definitely worth considering. However, if we're
> > still
> > ultimately aiming to publish, then I don't think the Wikipedia
> > copyright
> > license would allow us to directly use Wikipedia material anyway.
> >
> > Stephen

--
512k Broadband £14.99 per month
Unlimited Downloads - No extra Costs
£14.99 per month (inc. VAT)
Order Now www.adsl4less.com