In message <eou2d0+foo3@eGroups.com>, bouncelot <bouncelot@...>
writes
>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.
I'm still here, though I haven't found the time to contribute to the
project.
>
>Anyway, I was considering replacing the Whoniverse database thing with
>a Wiki, as it might encourage people to take part a bit more.
Sounds like a good idea.
>
>Any opinions? Should I set up a poll to ask the question?
If there are only a few people reading this, then a formal poll probably
isn't necessary.
--
John
--- 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.
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.
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
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.
I think it's a great idea to publish under the CC copyleft.
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 :)
That'll be two cents, please :)
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
>
>
>
>
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
CC = Creative Commons. It's one of the leading research- and sharing-
friendly copylefts for text, music, and art.
I didn't even realize they made a British edition of Monopoly :) (Silly
insular American!)
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 19:23 +0000, Stephen Gray wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 01:08, Nathan Hawks wrote:
> CC = Creative Commons. It's one of the leading research- and sharing-
> friendly copylefts for text, music, and art.
I got that you were talking about Creative Commons, but given that they have
half a dozen different licenses, I thought you were talking about a
particular one, and none of them is called "copyleft".
> I didn't even realize they made a British edition of Monopoly :) (Silly
> insular American!)
The British version features London, rather than Atlantic City, and has far
more interesting placenames.
> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 19:23 +0000, Stephen Gray wrote:
> > 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
--
512k Broadband £14.99 per month
Unlimited Downloads - No extra Costs
£14.99 per month (inc. VAT)
Order Now www.adsl4less.com
--- In whoconcord@..., Nathan Hawks <nhawks@...> 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.
>
> I think it's a great idea to publish under the CC copyleft.
>
> 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 :)
>
> That'll be two cents, please :)
There are a few confusions here, I think.
First, there are two databases under discussion here. There's the
Whoniverse database that Stephen runs over at whoniverse.net, and
there's the databases available here.
If there's a way of combining these to database sets online to produce
something unique and comprehensive, then great. Free online publishing
is certainly within the realms of Creative Commons.
My intention here, I've been quite open, is to form the basis of an
unofficial publication - much like Lance Parkin's AHistory or the
various encyclopedias that abound, with contributors credited along
the way. Such a book would contain essays and would report researched
information and sources, but wouldn't use content or characters in a
creative way.
Obviously the last thing I'd want to do is make the content free under
Creative Commons.
Its probably utterly stupid of me to do this in the public domain, but
there you go.
The whoniverse database was great. A wiki would be good also. The other Who Wiki was not as detailed about the locations the good doctor visited.
I have been making substancial use of the database, I apologize for being a lurker and not a poster. When I finish with my project, I planned to post something about it.
Alexander Dante <alexanderdante@...> wrote:
--- In whoconcord@..., "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.
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.
Offline 
Send Email
