Jake Nelson wrote:
Even if we don't use this plan, we definitely want
to keep them separate
from normal articles. The print versions should be different, and we
shouldn't freeze or delete normal articles for this. I'm not keen on a
en-print.wikipedia.org type fork as was suggested, but it's at least an
option.
There are many valid objections against a fork, but the strongest
argument for it may be simplicity. Our thinking about the print version
needs to be a lot more production oriented. Complicated new software
based solutions would be ill-advised. Categories, have been discussed
before, but not implemented. We have not had the opportunity to shake
out the bugs from category software or category schemes. Production
time is no time to be doing that. Maybe those categories will be
helpful for a later edition. Six months is a very short time for
developing a print ready product. We need to develop a strict time line
showing when certain steps absolutely MUST be completed. There will be
little time in all that for software bugs or NPOV wrangles. Wikipedia
as we now know it must continue to live without its purposes and
procedures being in conflict with those of the print version.
Personally, eventually, I forsee three versions: the
Pocket Wikipedia
(basically the first-paragraph thing), the Concise Wikipedia (a big volume),
and the Unabridged Wikipedia (pretty much the entirety of the web content).
Concise will want pictures, but shouldn't overdo it.
This is conceivable, but we shouldn't let the first edition get hung up
on finding suitable pictures. If we have them we use them, but we
shouldn't feel obliged to look for pictures if we don't have them.
Ec