Erik wrote:
In my opinion, Wikipedia should be the unstable version of Nupedia, a bit like Debian has a permanent unstable section. Things in Wikipedia can be complete nonsense, but they are always up to date.
I agree completely except for the name of the "stable" Wikipedia distribution; that, IMO, should be the slightly different "GNUpedia." Of course the GNU people esp RMS would have to sign off on our use of the "GNU" brand. If they do not feel comfortable with that then we can use Nupedia. My reasoning is simple; Nupedia is/was a very different project and we should have a different name if possible (and Wikimedia already owns both gnupedia.org and gnupedia.com).
I also like the "gnu" because it emphasizes the open content nature of such a project (since that would be the most prominent difference between it and any other static encyclopedia; the most prominent feature of Wikipedia, however, is that it is a wiki).
We may add a team certification model to Wikipedia eventually, but I'd be happy to see a simple Sifter solution as envisioned by Magnus (without the limit to certified experts as reviewers which I think is what Larry wanted). IMHO it would make perfect sense to use the Nupedia name and domain for that project.
Like I've said before; Sifter, team certification and a "stable" distribution of Wikipedia are all basically the same thing in that they are trying to accomplish similar goals. To be viable we should make one project that encompasses the best aspects of all three ideas.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)