Some wikis copy content from other sites. Some others have different viewpoints or objectives, like keeping descriptions simple, or being historically accurate.

The fundamental idea of Wikis is that they are user editable. This would make standardization mighty hard. Is someone going to have to translate every change made to every other language? Or are you going to eliminate user editing?

Nayhem, Dwane,Thank you for your comments.@Nayhem: But by copying, redundancy arises... Lesson no one in database and information: no redundancy, unless... But you are right, the 'spirit' of the different Wiki's differ. That is a good point. Maybe the WiMantic should focus on including the more common and stable 'knowledge', and thus being a basis for all kinds of other oriented (eg. more innovative content, more recent content, etc) wiki's.

@Dwayne. Good remark too. The Wimantic will be user editable, in the sense that everyone around the world can influence the content. Eg. by sending a changed text to the moderator which has committed him- or herself to it. Or the user can add a new text and become the moderator of it (or ask the WiMantic moderator group to fill in this role). The idea is further to use automatic translation engines to target content to other languages, and with the help of the community improve the translations with human sense (after this step the content in the target language is called 'semantically checked'. And after that, yes, some kind of change control system is applied, in other to keep in control of changes and how / whether these changes have been put through correctly in the various target languages.

And yes, this means a limitation of the ediotial freedom, but it results in a more solid global knowledge base, which in the and reaches a higher efficiency than redundant wiki editing (and keeping them consistent in an organic, or with a negative term 'anarchistic' manner). As a consequence the information in the WiMantic knowledge base will grow more slowly, but will reach a higher level of detail, 'correctness' and richness at a certian moment in time.

But maybe we should not call the WiMantic a type of Wiki, and let it be a concept on its own (to avoid all kinds of misunderstanding, 'conflicts', etc.). The background is the same: non profit developed, non profit and with the help of the global community filled, to serve us all.

Last remark: maybe only the more 'stable' wiki content should be imported into the WiMantic. The change process of the WiMantic is -indeed- too have for conten which is likely to change (innovative, new topics, drafts, etc.).

Does this answer your questions?Iwanjka