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)