Erik wrote:
...
- In any case, it complicates all marketing operations significantly.
It's difficult enough to explain what a wiki is. The probable result would be that we wouldn't even bother anymore to explain it and just point people to the stable version. That in turn would reduce the influx of contributors.
I've been basing this on the success of the distribution/project distinction in the free software world where the end users benefit by a two mode process (free software coders work on their own projects and the distributors put that all together in a nice, easy to use and polished product, while making sure that any improvements are incorporated into the free software projects).
However I do see the point that our end users are much more likely to become contributors than are end users to free software due to inherent learning curve issues in the coding world. But still, our stats indicate that there are 30 views to each edit and I expect that ratio to increase as we become more popular and more topics are filled-in and filled-out.
There will also always be a great many people who will not trust anything on a wiki. So all this begs the question; are we here to make an encyclopedia for the sake of making an encyclopedia, or are we here to make an encyclopedia whose content will be used by and be most useful to, the greatest number of people?
Having both stable and development versions of our content will make it most useful to the greatest number of people. The best way to market that is to make the distinction between the development and stable versions very clear. IMO the best way to accomplish this feat is to host the stable content on another domain with an interface that is optimized for content viewing. Wikipedia, however, is optimized for content adding and editing - as it should be.
Hosting the stable versions at Nupedia will slow down direct recruitment a bit, but it will also greatly increase the number and quality of readers of our content. A certain percentage of them will be interested in the development end of our content and will enter the ruff and wild world of Wikipedia to lend a hand. But most will just want of have reliable info. So having a buffer between pure readers and editors should increase the average quality of newbie editors.
Do we still need to be so oriented toward editing when we already have well over 4,000 edits a day and nearly 200,000 articles? A slow-down in editing and increased emphasis on getting things in stable form should become more of a priority. IMO, the best way to market that - both internally and externally - is by using nupedia.org to host the stable content.
Most people just want the reference material they use to fullfill their needs. They can use Nupedia which would be optimized for them and their needs. Other people are concerned about fullfilling the needs of the reference material. They can use Wikipedia since it is optimized for them. *Both will be joined at the hip yet have different specialties. *Both will make it very clear their association with the other. *Both will interoperate and encourage cross pollination. *Both will be one click away from each other. *Both win.
Is adding one single click to edit an article going to be that harmful weighed against the marketing advantages of using Nupedia.org?
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)