Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
So long as I'm still breathing I will strenuously fight against any Wikimedia-sponsored fork.
Me, too, so let's not sweat about that part too much.
I suppose this begs the question, "When is a fork a fork?" Many of Wikipedia's sister projects have some characteristics of a fork, but they all come under the same umbrella.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
I think what Mav is against, and what I'm against, is that we should copy a ton of articles out of Wikipedia proper and into another space (of whatever kind) and then edit edit edit those, while having the regular versions go off in their own direction. That seems like a lot of wasted effort.
Pointers to "good enough" versions is going to be helpful, and then of course once we have a "manuscript", the publisher will probably want to copyedit it one last time, and may need to make some slight modifications in order to fit some technical print requirements.
In some respects I feel that I have ended up in a role reversal here. I have clearly expressed myself as a committed inclusionist on Wikipedia, but find myself arguing from the opposite side in relation to the print edition, or at least the first printed edition. Some of the issues that are germane to the first edition may fade away for future editions.
To me the key to the success of this venture will be the establishment of realistic production minded goals. It's about what works. It's about saying there is no time to debate some esoteric point anymore. It's about being cautious around adopting untested software based solutions without even knowing how some of our very good but otherwise technically challenged contributors will confront any learning curve that such software implies. (We still have many contributors who feel that all html markup should be banned.) It's about making tough, accurate time-constrained decisions based on a realistic acceptance of all our limitations.
Philosophically, it doesn't much matter to me whether or not this is accomplished by way of a fork. The question, "Does it work?" is more significant here.
There is the old saw that "there is never a second chance to make a first impression." One of the most unrelenting arguments about a project such as Wikipedia is that you can never rely on it for accurate information. Those are the people that you want proven wrong! Making the first edition as big as possible is a high risk strategy which, if it fails, could have a devastating impact on any project of this kind by anybody in the future. This should explain my own strong feelings that a first edition would be better to have more modest goals in which size rather than accuracy is sacrificed.
I hope that this didn't sound too much like a rant. :-) Ec