Why not make it equivalent to a language Wikipedia? We already have the 'Simple English' Wikipedia. The other language type link on an article could tell you the page had been selected (or moved).
No offense, but this is a horrendously bad idea. We should instead focus on adding a good category system and on writing articles in news style so that the first section of each article is a concise article in its own right (I call this the 'lead section').
I also think that Simple was a bad idea as well since the lead section can and should be written in language that can be understood by an average person - no special knowledge of the subject area should be required to understand the lead section.
In addition, it would be nice to have the ability to mark particular versions of articles as "ready for print" (via a sifter-like mechanism). Then when the Concise Wikipedia script parses the database it would create concise articles out of the lead sections of every article version that was marked 'ready for print'. That would prevent any vandalism from entering the print edition.
Thus we have no forks and no freezing of Wikipedia articles. We could also create an updated version of Wikipedia Concise with each database backup. Such a thing would be great to have in a format that could be used by PDAs and palm top PCs. Hm. MediaWiki Lite...
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Why not make it equivalent to a language Wikipedia? We already have the 'Simple English' Wikipedia. The other language type link on an article could tell you the page had been selected (or moved).
No offense, but this is a horrendously bad idea. We should instead focus
on
adding a good category system and on writing articles in news style so
that the
first section of each article is a concise article in its own right (I
call
this the 'lead section').
I also think that Simple was a bad idea as well since the lead section can
and
should be written in language that can be understood by an average
person - no
special knowledge of the subject area should be required to understand the
lead
section.
In addition, it would be nice to have the ability to mark particular
versions
of articles as "ready for print" (via a sifter-like mechanism). Then when
the
Concise Wikipedia script parses the database it would create concise
articles
out of the lead sections of every article version that was marked 'ready
for
print'. That would prevent any vandalism from entering the print edition.
Thus we have no forks and no freezing of Wikipedia articles. We could also create an updated version of Wikipedia Concise with each database backup.
Such
a thing would be great to have in a format that could be used by PDAs and
palm
top PCs. Hm. MediaWiki Lite...
Personally, I'd like a 'Print version' (well, actually, that name isn't great, as we already have 'Printable version' it'd easily get confused with, but I don't have a better suggestion for example purposes) link on each article page. This goes to a Print: namespace. For example, article Foo, the print version link goes to 'Print:Foo'. I haven't decided whether a 'Talk:Print:Foo' would be good, or to just use the normal Talk page (probably the latter). The pages in the Print: namespace are absent (red link) until someone edits, when someone makes the first edit, they get the text of the current article revision in the edit box (possibly with some automated change, like piped links become a (see [[blah]]) after the linked text). Deletion of Print: pages would leave the associated normal article and talk pages intact. 'Wikipedia:' or 'Special:List of Print version articles' would be a good thing to have, or something along those lines. Even if we don't use this plan, we definitely want to keep them separate from normal articles. The print versions should be different, and we shouldn't freeze or delete normal articles for this. I'm not keen on a en-print.wikipedia.org type fork as was suggested, but it's at least an option. Personally, eventually, I forsee three versions: the Pocket Wikipedia (basically the first-paragraph thing), the Concise Wikipedia (a big volume), and the Unabridged Wikipedia (pretty much the entirety of the web content). Concise will want pictures, but shouldn't overdo it. Anyway, my thoughts on the matter.
-- Jake
Jake Nelson wrote:
Even if we don't use this plan, we definitely want to keep them separate from normal articles. The print versions should be different, and we shouldn't freeze or delete normal articles for this. I'm not keen on a en-print.wikipedia.org type fork as was suggested, but it's at least an option.
There are many valid objections against a fork, but the strongest argument for it may be simplicity. Our thinking about the print version needs to be a lot more production oriented. Complicated new software based solutions would be ill-advised. Categories, have been discussed before, but not implemented. We have not had the opportunity to shake out the bugs from category software or category schemes. Production time is no time to be doing that. Maybe those categories will be helpful for a later edition. Six months is a very short time for developing a print ready product. We need to develop a strict time line showing when certain steps absolutely MUST be completed. There will be little time in all that for software bugs or NPOV wrangles. Wikipedia as we now know it must continue to live without its purposes and procedures being in conflict with those of the print version.
Personally, eventually, I forsee three versions: the Pocket Wikipedia (basically the first-paragraph thing), the Concise Wikipedia (a big volume), and the Unabridged Wikipedia (pretty much the entirety of the web content). Concise will want pictures, but shouldn't overdo it.
This is conceivable, but we shouldn't let the first edition get hung up on finding suitable pictures. If we have them we use them, but we shouldn't feel obliged to look for pictures if we don't have them.
Ec
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Why not make it equivalent to a language Wikipedia? We already have the 'Simple English' Wikipedia. The other language type link on an article could tell you the page had been selected (or moved).
No offense, but this is a horrendously bad idea. We should instead focus on adding a good category system and on writing articles in news style so that the first section of each article is a concise article in its own right (I call this the 'lead section').
And who is going to have the time to verify that all the chosen articles are written in "news style"? Even if we limit ourselves to a mere 10,000 srticles it will be a horrendous task.
I also think that Simple was a bad idea as well since the lead section can and should be written in language that can be understood by an average person - no special knowledge of the subject area should be required to understand the lead section.
I'm no great fan of the Simple project, but I have no incentive to bother them in whatever they are doing. Keeping the language simple is easier said than done. It's a fine ideal, but I can forsee a lot of arguments over whether this or that has been put in simple terms.
Ec
Ray Saintonge (saintonge@telus.net) [040228 20:12]:
And who is going to have the time to verify that all the chosen articles are written in "news style"? Even if we limit ourselves to a mere 10,000 srticles it will be a horrendous task.
Someone will have to for the print version, whether it's a fork or not.
It will likely be done by volunteer editors like me, who find the project inspiring and want to get involved.
- d.