On 8/25/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote: I'm not sure what a strapline is, but yes. Perhaps a phrase to drop in interviews? Steve

On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: It is interesting that [[Mediawiki:Tagline]] currently only reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I would have thought we'd use the whole thing... -- Sam

On 25/08/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews. - d.

On 8/25/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: See the link at the bottom of that article. We were not first to report that. -- Sam

On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Becuase if that article was the first word there would not have been a BBC article to link to at that point. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Thus a slogan that can be read as an aim to provide second rate news reporting is ah less than ideal. -- geni

On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: There seems to be mild disagreement about whether "first word" means "chronologically the first to report" or "the inital source one consults". I'm thinking the second is more likely. Steve

On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: "first word" would be an unfortunate selection. Due to WP:NOR and WP:V we are expressly forbidden from being the "chronologically the first to report", although it happens a lot and has resulted in no small amount of problems. (We were technically the chronologically first to report Seigenthaler's 'involvement' in the Kennedy assassination, for example) .. and as you point out that first word can be viewed in that sense. The use of the word everything is also a potential source of problems. Wikipedia is not the "inital source one consults" about the rumors that your classmate is HIV+. Of course, we can only protect the stupid from themselves so much and no matter what words we use someone would be able to find a problem... but I think we could do better.

On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: Illustrated too.. My 'we' was generally intended to include our brilliant participants and not so much me. :) But, sure, anyone can generate an infinite number of these... here are some random ones, from more slogany to more explantory: Wikipedia- The freedom of knowledge Wikipedia- Participatory Enlightenment Wikipedia- The Encyclopedia by the world, for the world. Wikipedia- The [[polymath|Renaissance man's]] compendium. Wikipedia- edit this encyclopedia Wikipedia- [[WP:NPOV|Neutral]] contributors are always [[WP:welcome|welcome]]. Wikipedia- Collecting the knoweldge of the whole world requires the participation of the whole world. Wikipedia- Your way right away. well, perhaps not the last.

On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"

On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Wikipedia: good enough for the internet" -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Wikipedia: blocked by China, blocking Congress" -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

--- stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Should have a ? at the end... "Wikipedia: Does Britannica have a soggy biscuit article?" SV __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On 8/26/06, niht-hræfn &lt;nihthraefn(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Exactly! I realise that people might associate it with a certain Peoples republic (ironic, since said People's Republic are blocking us), But I really do think it describes us fairly well. And by the way, when did "people" become one of those loaded, Newspeak words, that cannot be used without making a reference to something else. You know like communist, socialist, terrorist, freedom, liberal, etc. Maybe a better slogan would be "Wikipedia - The encyclopedia for the masses" or "Wikipedia - The encyclopedia for the rest of us". If we're going down that path maybe we should just fess up and call it "I can't believe it's not Britannica!" and post a picture of an "<- I'm with stupid!" T-shirt on our frontpage. Yeah, I guess, "Wikipedia - The free encyclopedia" is a pretty good slogan. How about we just remove the "that anyone can edit" part? That seems like a good solution to me... --Oskar

On 26 Aug 2006, at 14:33, Sam Korn wrote: There is a risk that we will put all primary sources out of business: Wikipedia - the encyclopaedia you used to be able to edit.