limholt@excite.com wrote:
One of the goals generally included in the Wiki 1.0 discussion is the creation of a paper Wikipedia. This sems to have an assumption that lot's of material gets dropped or summarized.
Well, I don't *think* so. Right now, we're in the ballpark of the size of Britannica, possibly a bit bigger. But then, we have a fair amount of questionable fluff lurking around. So if we're thinking of 1.0 being approximately equivalent in size and quality to Britannica, we shouldn't have to cut anything good from where we are today.
In the future, this will likely be a problem. If Wikipedia 2.0 follows 1.0 by a 3 year time span, for example, it's likely that it would be twice as big and totally problematic as a print version.
But for 1.0, I don't envision a lot of cutting.
I can totally imagine in the future that we'll have multiple sifted editions, for example:
Wikipedia 2.0p - full version, paper Wikipedia 2.0d - desktop paper, a highly shortened version Wikipedia 2.0e - electronic, no size constraints at all Wikipedai 2.0r - raw, sifted articles plus everything else, too
But rather than get into a game of excessive a priori design, I think we should stick to "1.0 is just 1.0" as a mantra. And what I mean by that is that we keep a 1.0 release simple, a single release, and the approval process focussed on openness and reliability of articles, rather than infinite flexibility for potential printers/publishers/distributors.
I do also like the idea of Wikipedia: History of Rock Music and similar. But "1.0 is just 1.0". :-)
--Jimbo