<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<P>--- Anthere <ANTHERE9@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR>> Nod. But we could give different goals to products.<BR>> For example, the goal of wikireaders could be from now<BR>> on be much more defined.<BR>> <BR>> It is already a different goal that wikipedia<BR>> * it offers limited information (it is an extract of<BR>> wikipedia)<BR>> * it tries to cover quite generally a whole topic (eg,<BR>> a wikireader on a country will covers its geography,<BR>> politics, economics, tourism etc...)<BR>> * it is meant to be read only (errors can't be fixed).<BR>> <BR>> * it is meant to be sold (while wikipedia is free)<BR>> <BR>> We could add to these different goals the fact the<BR>> information in it has been double checked, that it<BR>> undergone an *organised* peer-review (rather than a<BR>> quite anarchic one like on wikipedia). <BR><BR>I agree with all of this and would like to add that the WikiReader idea could<BR>eventually be expanded to cover
entire limited subject/focus encyclopedias<BR>(such as concise, science, biography, war, geography, ... etc.). Good<BR>categorization could be used to help select which articles to go into these<BR>various WikiReader encyclopedias and the concise version could use the lead<BR>sections from a much larger set of articles. All selected articles would then<BR>have to go through some kind of approval process and fixed as needed or<BR>discarded from the list (all edits would still be on Wikipedia). <BR><BR>---------------<BR><BR>Yes. This is why I suggested in the category discussion on the wikien-l, that people start to team together around one topic. A team work (rather a loose association as right now) could develop around specific topics (just as it is done from time to time on wikiprojects).<BR><BR>These teams could at the same time work together<BR>* to define proper categorizing of the topic<BR>* try to define which essentials articles are still missing for the topic to be roughtly
covered<BR>* work together toward filling the main gaps<BR>* once the team agree that the topic is generally well covered, decide which articles could perhaps constitute the frame of a wikireader (or any type of material which could be distributed, less pages, more pages, specific goal, specific audience...)<BR>* organise a team peer review of all articles selected to belong the distribution material<BR><BR>For this, I wonder if it might not been best that each team develops with the help of one organiser, someone strongly trusted for his/her knowledge of the topic, and his/her cooperative and organising abilities.</P>
<P>Distribution of the whole encyclopedia is an interesting goal, but I guess it will be tough. Probably is it best to go step by step, and have groups focus on isolated topic. Through this, we will have the opportunity to test our ability to cover properly *some* areas, review them fully for accuracy and completeness, then define production and distribution procedure.</P>
<P>Ant</P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p>
<hr size=1><font face=arial size=-1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>Friends. Fun. <a href="http://messenger.yahoo.com/">Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger</a>