Talk:Life

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

This is the Version 1.0 Editorial Team page.

General background

Article ratings assessment scheme

In late 2003, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales had proposed making an offline release version of Wikipedia. This group was formed in late 2004 to meet this challenge. Our work involves identifying and organizing articles, and improving and maintaining a core set. Our work does not hinder the existing wiki process for creating and editing articles, but rather it supports that work by providing additional organization. We aim to produce collections that can be used in places where the internet coverage is expensive or non-existent. Our early collections were distributed via DVD; now these are shared via download, then distributed on hardware such as a Raspberry Pi. Originally, only a fixed selection was available, but there is now much flexibility in how selections can be made. This project is now mainly one point in a network of groups who collect and distribute open educational resources from the Internet in an offline form.

See these more detailed related articles:

• Guide to Wikipedia Release Version tools
• Wikipedia 1.0 FAQs
• Wikipedia 1.0 Release Version Criteria
• Broad overview of Wikimedia's Offline Project

How you can help

Main page: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/To do

You are encouraged to join us and help out with one of the projects, or to discuss Wikipedia 1.0 on the talk page. A significant part of our work centers around maintaining the assessment scheme, which is now used on more than seven million articles by over 1000 active WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. It is also being used on other language projects. Generally work on this team is sporadic – periods of hectic activity followed by long periods of waiting! Often work is long and tedious – checking through a list of 22,000 instances of profanities one by one, organizing 10,000 keywords taken from category names, or dealing with technical bugs when the assessment bot fails for no apparent reason. However, it is all worth it in the end.

Our strategy has been intensely debated, but the group has reached a consensus. We elected not to follow the German model. Instead we chose to start with a core of quality articles on key subjects and expand from there. We have produced three test versions: Version 0.5, Version 0.7, and Version 0.8 with the goal of releasing better collections of articles in due course. The next general release is generically referred to as "Release Version" while our first "official" comprehensive release will be called Version 1.0. These collections are then made available for offline use using a reader such as Kiwix, which was chosen as Sourceforge project of the month. The project was on hiatus for several years because of the loss of our main developer. However, as of February 2016, a new group of developers has begun work on upgrading the code and the process, in order to start producing new collections again, especially collections for schools.

Current needs

Although we have much of the requisite system automated, there are still some outstanding tasks:

• Preparation of a reliable index. If you can write code and you're interested in how to map category trees into a useful index (not as easy as it sounds!) please contact Walkerma.
• Reviewing manual nominations. Whenever there is a new release being planned, we need volunteers to review a few articles and process them.
• Propose useful "guide" pages to be added, such as lists and disambiguation pages.
• Check for vandalism in the selected version-IDs of the articles.
• Develop nice pages for navigation through the content, such as subject portals.
• Test the reader software, and find and report bugs.
• Help with distribution, especially in remote areas without Internet access.

Please let us know on the Talk page if you can help with any of these.

A page read offline in Kiwix

Status

At present, the main activities are:

• The assessment scheme, which is used by WikiProjects for organizing their content, using talk page tags and the WP1.0 bot. The bot was updated with completely new Perl code in 2020–2021, and it is currently maintained by User:Audiodude. Technical problems with the bot should be reported here. Related to this work is the WP1.0 server (previously called "Release Version Tools) which provides ways for WikiProjects to analyze article lists and data relating to their work.
• Collaborations to produce offline collections are done in collaboration with various people from Kiwix and Internet-in-a-Box. Please contact Walkerma if you wish to help.

To select articles, we are mainly using a bot-assisted selection process based on assessment by individual WikiProjects, where articles are selected automatically based on quality and importance project rankings.

RevID selection

Based on discussions (at the 2017 Potsdam hackathon and since), we plan to reactivate RevID selection. Previously code based on WikiTrust was used in Version 0.8, and this appeared to produce a largely vandalism-free collection of articles. This worked by scoring each RevID based on the edits remaining in it, and choosing the most "trustworthy" recent RevID based on the WikiTrust algorithm.

Wikipedia 1.0 projects

Active projects

If you would like to start a new project, please discuss it on the talk page first before adding it here.

Wikipedia 1.0 Projects
Name	Summary of overall strategy	Coordinator	Description of activities
School selection	Put together selections of 1–10 GB sizes for use in high schools and elementary schools	User:Walkerma and others	Uses new code that starts with a seed and works out, guided by the WP 1 selection ranking to guide it
Work via WikiProjects (WVWP)	Use "networking" to mobilise our existing subject specialists	User:Walkerma	Organise and facilitate compilation of article lists from the WikiProjects and seek to identify important topics within each WikiProject's area of expertise. Locate important topics that are currently not being managed by projects. In conjunction with WP:COUNCIL, the project serves as a link with the editing community, and may later help locate expert reviewers.

Past releases

Past Wikipedia 1.0 Projects
Name	Summary of overall strategy	Month of release	Description of activities	Website	Next release
Version 0.5	A test release prior to release of Version 1.0 above.	April 2007	A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Used manual nominations and approval based on importance and quality. Approval was by only one person, from the review team.	Okawix	Version 0.7
Version 0.7	A test release of automated article selections, prior to release of Version 1.0 above.	Early 2010	A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Used SelectionBot to make an article selection based on importance and quality. Vandalism prevention used a script, with manual checks, which delayed the release significantly. [1]	Kiwix reader, ZIM download	Version 0.8
Version 0.8	A test release of automated article selections, prior to release of Version 1.0 above.	March 2011	A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Version 0.8 used bot-assisted article selection, with manual adjustments based on feedback from WikiProjects. Used as a test of the WikiTrust revisionID selection code - this worked well.	Wikipedia:Version 0.8/downloads.	Version 0.9
2006 Wikipedia CD Selection (previously called "Test Version")	Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo	April 2006	2000 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection).	No longer available - see 2008/9 release below	2007 Wikipedia CD Selection (below)
2007 Wikipedia CD Selection	Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo	May 2007	4655 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection).	No longer available - see 2008/9 release below	2008/9 Wikipedia CD Selection (below)
2008/9 Wikipedia CD Selection	Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo	October 2008	5502 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection).	http://schools-wikipedia.org	Not yet known

Inactive projects

Inactive Wikipedia 1.0 Projects
Name	Summary of overall strategy	Coordinator	Description of activities
Authoritative Editions	Gives experts in each field the tools to review suitable articles in their area of expertise and give their okay to particular revisions.	Sj, Jeff Keller, Gnp	Allow editors to propose new groups; for example: "Featured Article review" or "American Physical Society peer review". Each blessing group would have a set of review guidelines. Each blessing group would consist of this set of guidelines, and a set of users who could bless a revision of an article as satisfying them. Articles with blessed revisions would display icons or links to last-blessed revisions.
Featured Articles First	reviewing older or problem FAs to ensure that quality is maintained, ready for inclusion of these articles in Wikipedia 1.0.		(Now a standard part of the FA system)
Geography project	to produce a descriptive gazetteer of the world for publication.		This could include an atlas, continents, countries and major cities. This would serve as a test bed for publishing Wikipedia 1.0, but could also be a valuable stand-alone product.
Three Level Editing	Users participate in a three part editing process to assure that pages are up to quality standards.		The first level is just a general check, the second level is a factual check, and the third level is a last "just in case" check. This process would assure that articles would be up to standards without putting too much responsibility on one user.
Biographies	Improve and assess biographical articles		Focus especially on the 200 Core Biographies, in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. .
Dynamic Pocket Cyclopedia	Lists most important FAs, FLs, and GAs.		An evolving list of no more than half of Wikipedia's most important featured articles, featured lists, and designated good articles.
WikiSort	Integrate the sifting process into the Wiki.		Aims to use data from the planned user rating scheme to provide rankings of articles, such that important quality articles can be automatically identified for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. This project has been rendered obsolete by WikiProject-based assessments (see above).
Article assessment	To assess articles		This project has been rendered obsolete by WikiProject-based assessments (see above).

Publishing steps

The process of generating an offline version of a sub-selection of Wikipedia article is multistage. It needs many dedicated and singled-purposed operations. The following chart show how the WP1 project envisioned things in 2010.

The general process for producing an offline release

Even if this chart is still, to a large extend, valid; we practice and envision things slightly differently nowadays. One of the most important paradigm change we had to make is to remove as much as possible human based manual activity because the amount of work is simply too high to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. We tend now to automatize as much as possible the whole process. As a consequence the project is now predominantly focused on technology.

Technical approach

Support Wikiproject assessment effort

The first software created to support the WP1 project has been the User:WP_1.0_bot. First written in Perl by User:CBM and then slighly modified and maintained by a few other volunteers. In 2020 the bot has been totally rewritten in Python following modern development standards (API, automated tests, etc.) by User:Audiodude. The code base is available en developed on Github.

The WP1bot had and still have three traditional purposes:

• gather assessments (via categories introduced on main namespace articles talk pages),
• upload on Wikipedia logs & stats
• provide key information & tools to Wikiproject on a dedicated Web service. The data can also be accessed through an API at api.wp1.openzim.org

Select article titles

...

Select article revision

...

Scrape selected articles for offline usage

...

Orchestrate periodic and multiple scraping

...

Publish and distribute offline snapshots

...

Statistics

The WP 1.0 bot tracks assessment data (article quality and importance data for individual WikiProjects) assigned via Talk page banners. If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.

The global summary table below is computed by taking the highest quality and importance rating for each assessed article in the main namespace.

All rated articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low ??? Total FA 1,571 2,483 2,405 1,930 180 8,569 FL 180 674 775 703 103 2,435 A 364 683 790 579 91 2,507 GA 3,212 7,301 14,689 19,411 1,742 46,355 B 16,871 32,712 54,097 68,224 22,840 194,744 C 16,791 53,832 134,687 306,488 90,230 602,028 Start 18,484 92,296 415,103 1,610,134 407,305 2,543,322 Stub 4,293 31,526 278,432 2,797,050 762,739 3,874,040 List 4,831 17,102 53,756 192,930 68,430 337,049 Assessed 66,597 238,609 954,734 4,997,449 1,353,660 7,611,049 Unassessed 124 476 1,244 17,690 416,562 436,096 Total 66,721 239,085 955,978 5,015,139 1,770,222 8,047,145 About this table

Related pages

General

• Jimbo's proposal, Chicago Meetup - Jimbo's Oct 2004 ideas on how to get to 1.0.
• Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 Early discussion page for brainstorming ideas, before this team was created.
• meta:Wikipedia 1.0
• meta:Static content group

Assessment and validation

• Wikipedia:Article assessment
• meta:Article validation and Wikipedia:Pushing to validation - argue the benefit of article validation and possible implementations
• Wikipedia:Flagged revisions (similar to the older "stable versions")
  • Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
  • Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions
  • Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/reliable revisions
  • Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Checkpoints and grading
  • Demo version of flagged revisions
• Wikipedia:Footnotes
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Request for comment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check

Wikipedia books

• Wikipedia:Books & meta:WikiReader - Wikipedia books are collections of articles from Wikipedia on a certain topic, in the form of PDFs published for download and intended to be printed, and also to be sold in printed form.
• The Book Tool, and Wiki to print, a collaboration between the Foundation and OSI/PediaPress.

Article selections

• Wikipedia:Vital articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - Filling the gaps.
• Wikipedia:Good articles
• Featured Articles
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
  • Wikipedia:Featured articles
  • Wikipedia:What is a featured article
  • Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates
• Wikipedia:Stable versions

See also

• List of online encyclopedias - compare Wikipedia with other projects

Archives

Up through July 2006 *

I'm offended to the very soul

So which one of you so called "professionals"

Can't even put in an alternate theory?

For example.

"There is an alternate theory relating to relegion that their idol/god created the universe"

Would at least make me LESS mad.

This one needs one serious Re-make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.21.38 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

DISAMBIGUATIONS and MERGERS

I'm a student of linguistics. When I search for INANIMATE, it brings me here. Why? By INANIMATE in the linguistic sense, I mean the INANIMATE category in nouns, for example (e.g. ANIMATE MASCULINE vs. INANIMATE MASCULINE). When I search for ANIMATE, it takes me to a a totally different page devoted to some Japanese house or whatever. Why???

Seperation of Religious Belief with Life Itself

Coming across this page, I've noticed a couple of edits on the main page as well as the discussions here, about life being created by "God". It should be said that the separation of the science of the topic of life and the topics on the "Life" Wikipedia talk page should be respected by people of all religions. In no way does this page attempt to depict a certain religion - it tries to be as neuteral as possible. Let's please keep it that way!

Metaphysical Definition

"Life itself is a set of processes that are carried out by an organism causing it to possess a minimum set of characteristics.

In metaphysics an organism possesses life during the period between an organism's acquisition of a spirit, upon Fertilisation, until it's spirit's terminal evacuation, upon death."

--Considering that the word "spirit" itself and other spirit-like words like psyche and pneuma come linguistically from words for "breath" and don't have any linguistic ties to fertilization, it may be argued that associating "spirit" or breath with fertilization may be a modern connection. Spirit was biblically and (especially by the Greeks) associated with birth or the first breath. The Greeks at one time believed the vessels of the body were filled with air and that air/breath was the animating principle of people. After all, dead people don't breath.

Perhaps there should be a history of the definitions of life segment to discuss different views of life at different points in time and by different philosophical groups.

open_mind 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the word spirit implies 'breath', thus a plant or an embryo can not be considered to have a spirit since it doesn't have a breathing apparatus. But if you look further, the implication of 'breath' in Greek is to 'breath life into'. It is a mainly an animal phenomenon that young first breathe upon birth (or hatching), though it would be difficult to argue that the organism isn't alive nor has a spirit before it 'spirates' its first air. Of course, fish never breathe air though they still have an animal spirit and animal soul. The meaning of spirit is something that 'breathes life into' an organism, or an organism 'has life is breathed into' it. You may find this also a circular definition. The spirit is the metaphysical 'breath' itself. I believe the metaphysical meaning of spirit is the non corporeal substance that gives life to an organism, therefore the usage of 'spirit' in conjunction with a metaphysical meaning of life is not necessarily invalid.

KirkWolff 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the validity of fertilization as a modern view of when life begins. Maybe I was not clear about that. However, I do find it interesting that today with our intimate scientific knowledge of reproductive processes, we describe the spirit as something abstract (the non corporeal substance that gives life to an organism) whereas ancient civilizations may have viewed early life (and when it begins) much more literally (that air is the thing that animates all things).

Ancient civilizations were likely unaware of reproductive processes like fertilization and would likely view birth as the beginning of life as my admittedly amature linguistic analysis appears to support.

Maybe differing historical metaphysical beliefs about life should have their own page or a section could exist here for it.

open_mind 00:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Newton serious??

The 2060 article says Isaac Newton thought life on earth was going to end in 2060. Do today's scientists still agree?? Please explain. Georgia guy 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Newton's 2060 theory wasn't a scientific one it was based entirely on his religious beliefs and how he interpreted those myths. On those grounds scientific method has never agreed with him and it is unlikely that they ever will.

I studied science for four years at reputable institutions, and I am greviously saddened to report that I find little compelling evidence to support Mr. Newton's bold hypothesis. -- Chris 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

David Bland quotation & the In philosophy section

The quotation attributed to David Bland added in the In philosophy section :

“At some point in their life, every person asks themselves, "What is the meaning of life?" Some people say that many years from know, everything that we have created will not affect future generations, eventually everything will be gone or forgotten. The money and material possessions we have accumulated will have absolutely no impact on the world. If this is true, then the only positive thing that can come from our existence is our enjoying our time here. (To enjoy our lives doesn’t mean to waste it).” David Bland

This doesn't seem to be adding important information to the article. I myself have not heard of David Bland and neither has Wikipedia. I don't think this section should be a collection of proverbs and quotations from different individuals, IMHO.

This section needs some work, but I'm not sure that I'm the person to do it. My background is more in the science of life than the philosophy of life. Any philosophical takers on this one?

Benwildeboer 11:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone with the surname of Bland merits mention on Wikipedia. Especially if his strongest adherent here can't be bothered to write out a fully-correct quotation (2nd sentence: know vs. now). -- Chris 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's very negative. David Bland could be the X-factor addition to the Spice Girls on their farewell tour of Essex.--80.6.163.58 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Death

Shouldn't the ability to die be part of the definition of life? I know it's a bit circular, since it is impossible to define death without life, but the same could be said of pretty much all distinctions in Western thought. . . . 24.14.246.12 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that cessation of life is (part of) the definition of death, not vice versa. horsedreamer 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Memius 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC) The ability to die has helped life grow and consolidate on Earth, but dying from old age is not an inherent part of being alive. There are creatures on Earth, such as sharks and crocodiles, that apparently do not age. Death and murder is only prevalent because it helps life in general by making nutrients and energy available in one convenient package (the dead body).

It'd be good to see a section of quotes about life...

Here's a starter:

"If it were not for the difficult character of life, it would not be life." -- Some depressed dude

Unfortuntely Wiki has a policy of only citing reputable, published sources, not reputable, unpublished persons, so this can't be added. Alas. -- Chris 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't hate! He may very well be published by Depressed Dudes Publishing LTD. 68.215.226.236

Does that quote necessarily indicate that the dude in question is depressed? -Peter

What defines a reputable source? Not scientific fact, not anything else, we all have to make a decision of faith because no one will ever know. Whether you base your theories on carbon dating (created by man) or whatever, you can never truly know. As a human you do not possess the ability to understand where life originated from or where it will end.

Some Depressed Guy (1809-1838) was an Australian philosopher and poet. Other famous quotes include: "there's no reason to be embarrased if you're blind" and "i'm oh, so very depressed"-- ben

Disambig

If you type in LIFE (block capitals), you'll be directed to the article about the Americam magazine, with no reference to this article.-80.6.163.58 03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mass of Life

I'm removing the following text from the article: Currently the entire Earth contains about 75 billion tons of biomass (life), which lives within various environments within the biosphere. It was listed as "citation needed," and I think it's wrong to give such an arbitrary statistic without any reference. This is especially true because, for instance, Isaac Asimov (in The Power of Progression) estimated the total mass of life on earth at 20 TRILLION tons. This is off from the article's estimate by a factor of nearly 300! Kier07 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removed line -Other Info- The cheif of the African tribe, Huhakaiuya meaning monkey god, thought monkey's and primates to be sexually attractive.--Liquidvelvet 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be semi-protected. Emanla Eraton 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Life is but a commodity"

I agree - this article seems to get almost daily vandalism, usually by users who are not logged in. It should be semi-protected. CharlesC 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've submitted a request for page protection, and it seems to have be done already. Good news. CharlesC 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneos Generation

Shouldn't there something on spontaneous generation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.237.29.31 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC). -That theory was proven to be false with a famous Louis Pasteur expariment.71.65.34.160 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously so. The history of our understanding of life, its origins and its nature belong on wikipedia--however that would make a very large article, and this article is already cool and developed, so such things should go elsewhere.160.94.28.165 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is Life ? The Process from Birth until Death

Life is precious to anyone. However, ultimately few people lead their life with the correct understanding of life. Why do people live in the state of being unaware of life? It is because there hasn't been anyone who teaches about life or anyone who wants to learn about it either in this period.
What is Life ?

what is a virus if not alive? what is the nature of life?

The article says a virus is not alive because it is not cellular and does not have a particular metabolism. This is not a definition of life which seems good to me. There could be other life which has neither of these qualities. Extra-terrestial life, e.g. In any event a better reason why a virus is not alive is needed. Paul Beardsell 02:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where to put this?

I'm not sure where to put this, but I'd like for someone to see if they can look at this site for a while and see if they can update the names of families, orders, genera, classes and others according to this catalog. Currently, it lists 1,008,965 species. I cannot do this myself, being a simple 13 year old and having many other things to do. http://www.catalogueoflife.org/browse_taxa.php 67.171.167.106 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The taxon for "Life on Earth"

At this moment in the page, a taxon for Life on Earth is listed with the taxonomical name Gaeabionta. But as it is, the name Gaeabionta (or Gaeabiota) is almost never used, when you search for the name in Google, it seams to be predominantly used on the English Wikipedia and its clones. But opposed to this the name Geobiota seems to be used far more for this taxon, also the term Geobionta is used in this meaning. The term "geobiont" seems to be widely used, like in other Wikipedia's: pl:Geobiont, ro:Geobiont, but this seems to mean the same as "soil organism". Besides that, also the term Gaiabiota seems to be sparcely used. And the term Terrabiota seems also to have been suggested for this taxon.

Could anyone bring any clarity to this subject, and if so, please do. Tuganax 14:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A more simple definition for Life

    Life is anything that has the ability to reproduce.

Would that be a more simple way to define "Life?" --Iluvmesodou 08:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Hello From Isabela Province, Philippines. TueSep18,2007 at 19:17 in Santiago(City approx 10 minutes drive NE of Cordon),Isabela(Province approx 8 hrs drive NE of Manila,Metro Manila),Philippines. My site is at http://www.michaelmanalolazo.lifeme.net Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.162.114 (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-carbon based life

The article has the sentence: Broader definitions of life may also include theoretical non-carbon-based life and other alternative biology. It links non-carbon-based life to alternative biochemistry. However, life based on alternative biochemistry already satisfies all of the narrow definitions given in the article, so a broader definition is not necessary for them. Should the sentence be changed to read: Broader definitions of life may also include alternative biology.--HarryHenryGebel 20:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I took out the following

Because it's poorly worded and look like original research or opinion... I like and agree with it, but I can't re-edit it to work.

"Of course we need to acknowledge that our concept of life is based on our own perception of the universe. We can experience that we are living and from there we formulated a concept of life with forms, entities with similar properties, like animals and plants. When it was discovered that we are made up of cells, being made up of cells was by some been qualified as a necessary property of life. But, as illustrated above, this is probably not the case when speaking of more hypothetical and non-traditional forms of life, thus also other properties could be an indication for life, like for example a certain form of sentience, conscience, intelligence and/or sapience. Thus the definition of life is rather made up out of multiple possibilities of life to exist, by some qualities which are unified in human life (although it needs to be considered that some possibilities might not be represented in humans, in this case it could be problematic to conclude whether it is really living or not).
But all these possibilities might hypothetically also lead to a form of life on their own."

125.237.59.43 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)