Hi all, I was wondering if we wanted to try and get some kind of one-sentence slogan/summary/motto/mantra to explain exactly how authoritative Wikipedia is and isn't, and how it should and should not be used. Two thoughts that came to mind:
- Wikipedia is a tertiary source. (Not a primary source, not really even a secondary source - we discuss and collate primary sources).
- Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up *anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*, because we're always based on other sources which have more detail than we do).
Comments?
Steve
On 25 Aug 2006, at 10:28, Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi all, I was wondering if we wanted to try and get some kind of one-sentence slogan/summary/motto/mantra to explain exactly how authoritative Wikipedia is and isn't, and how it should and should not be used. Two thoughts that came to mind:
- Wikipedia is a tertiary source. (Not a primary source, not really
even a secondary source - we discuss and collate primary sources).
- Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up *anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*, because we're always based on other sources which have more detail than we do).
Comments?
I thought the first was a bit technical and dry for a strapline.
The first sentence of the second option is great for a strapline: - Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on nothing.
On 8/25/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
I thought the first was a bit technical and dry for a strapline.
I'm not sure what a strapline is, but yes. Perhaps a phrase to drop in interviews?
Steve
On 25/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
I thought the first was a bit technical and dry for a strapline.
I'm not sure what a strapline is, but yes. Perhaps a phrase to drop in interviews?
Strapline: the function that the phrase "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" is presently fulfilling.
- d.
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Strapline: the function that the phrase "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" is presently fulfilling.
It is interesting that [[Mediawiki:Tagline]] currently only reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I would have thought we'd use the whole thing...
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up *anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*, because we're always based on other sources which have more detail than we do).
This is brilliant. It sums up exactly what Wikipedia is and how it should be used, and, what's more, it's catchy.
Suggest this is worked into as many press interviews as possible. :-)
On 25/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering if we wanted to try and get some kind of one-sentence slogan/summary/motto/mantra to explain exactly how authoritative Wikipedia is and isn't, and how it should and should not be used.
In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good enough to be useful*."
- Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up *anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*, because we're always based on other sources which have more detail than we do).
Not sure it's marketable ;-) but "last word on nothing, first word on everything" seems to me an excellent way of describing what an encyclopedia is for.
- d.
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure it's marketable ;-) but "last word on nothing, first word on everything" seems to me an excellent way of describing what an encyclopedia is for.
- d.
Runns into slight problems with news stories were if we are going to instist on includeing them are slogan should be something like "second with everything".
On 25/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure it's marketable ;-) but "last word on nothing, first word on everything" seems to me an excellent way of describing what an encyclopedia is for.
Runns into slight problems with news stories were if we are going to instist on includeing them are slogan should be something like "second with everything".
We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.
- d.
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.
And yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&ol...
On 8/25/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.
And yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&ol...
See the link at the bottom of that article. We were not first to report that.
On 25/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.
And yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&ol...
Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the jump to two-liners ...)
- d.
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.
And yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&ol...
Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the jump to two-liners ...)
Becuase if that article was the first word there would not have been a BBC article to link to at that point. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Thus a slogan that can be read as an aim to provide second rate news reporting is ah less than ideal.
On 25/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Becuase if that article was the first word there would not have been a BBC article to link to at that point. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Thus a slogan that can be read as an aim to provide second rate news reporting is ah less than ideal.
Ah, no original research here. Got it. Hmm.
(btw, please stick to two-liner responses, they're much clearer.)
- d.
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the jump to two-liners ...)
There seems to be mild disagreement about whether "first word" means "chronologically the first to report" or "the inital source one consults". I'm thinking the second is more likely.
Steve
On 25/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be mild disagreement about whether "first word" means "chronologically the first to report" or "the inital source one consults". I'm thinking the second is more likely.
I can see the implication of original research or original reporting geni points out. Not that I get hypersensitive to how idjits might misuse things ...
- d.
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the jump to two-liners ...)
There seems to be mild disagreement about whether "first word" means "chronologically the first to report" or "the inital source one consults". I'm thinking the second is more likely.
"first word" would be an unfortunate selection. Due to WP:NOR and WP:V we are expressly forbidden from being the "chronologically the first to report", although it happens a lot and has resulted in no small amount of problems. (We were technically the chronologically first to report Seigenthaler's 'involvement' in the Kennedy assassination, for example) .. and as you point out that first word can be viewed in that sense.
The use of the word everything is also a potential source of problems. Wikipedia is not the "inital source one consults" about the rumors that your classmate is HIV+.
Of course, we can only protect the stupid from themselves so much and no matter what words we use someone would be able to find a problem... but I think we could do better.
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
"first word" would be an unfortunate selection. Due to WP:NOR and WP:V we are expressly forbidden from being the "chronologically the first to report", although it happens a lot and has resulted in no small amount of problems. (We were technically the chronologically first to report Seigenthaler's 'involvement' in the Kennedy assassination, for example) .. and as you point out that first word can be viewed in that sense.
Any suggestions? Is "first source" better? I can't imagine interpreting "First source for information" chronologically...
The use of the word everything is also a potential source of problems. Wikipedia is not the "inital source one consults" about the rumors that your classmate is HIV+.
Sure it is, you'll also find out that he is gay but has a huge penis...
Of course, we can only protect the stupid from themselves so much and no matter what words we use someone would be able to find a problem... but I think we could do better.
Hit me.
Steve
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Any suggestions? Is "first source" better? I can't imagine interpreting "First source for information" chronologically...
The use of the word everything is also a potential source of problems. Wikipedia is not the "inital source one consults" about the rumors that your classmate is HIV+.
Sure it is, you'll also find out that he is gay but has a huge penis...
Illustrated too..
Hit me.
My 'we' was generally intended to include our brilliant participants and not so much me. :)
But, sure, anyone can generate an infinite number of these... here are some random ones, from more slogany to more explantory:
Wikipedia- The freedom of knowledge Wikipedia- Participatory Enlightenment Wikipedia- The Encyclopedia by the world, for the world. Wikipedia- The [[polymath|Renaissance man's]] compendium. Wikipedia- edit this encyclopedia Wikipedia- [[WP:NPOV|Neutral]] contributors are always [[WP:welcome|welcome]]. Wikipedia- Collecting the knoweldge of the whole world requires the participation of the whole world. Wikipedia- Your way right away.
well, perhaps not the last.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the jump to two-liners ...)
There seems to be mild disagreement about whether "first word" means "chronologically the first to report" or "the inital source one consults". I'm thinking the second is more likely.
That's the way I read it too. Would changing "word" to "source" help?
Ec
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good enough to be useful*."
That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"
On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good enough to be useful*."
That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"
And it's conclusively proven by making it to no. 17 website in the world by pure word of mouth ;-)
- d.
On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good enough to be useful*."
That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"
"Wikipedia: good enough for the internet"
On 8/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good enough to be useful*."
That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"
"Wikipedia: good enough for the internet"
Wikipedia: Now blocked in two countries!
On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good enough to be useful*."
That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"
"Wikipedia: good enough for the internet"
Wikipedia: Now blocked in two countries!
"Wikipedia: blocked by China, blocking Congress"
On 8/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good enough to be useful*."
That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"
"Wikipedia: good enough for the internet"
Wikipedia: Now blocked in two countries!
"Wikipedia: blocked by China, blocking Congress"
Now that one I like!
Garion96
--- Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I've always liked "Wikipedia - the people's encyclopedia"
As in "Wikipedia - The People's Republic of..."
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I've always liked "Wikipedia - the people's encyclopedia"
As in "Wikipedia - The People's Republic of..."
Should have a ? at the end...
"Wikipedia: Does Britannica have a soggy biscuit article?"
SV
SV
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Aug 25, 2006, at 9:53, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I've always liked "Wikipedia - the people's encyclopedia" _______________________________________________
Wikipedia is to information what democracy once was to government: of the people, for the people, by the people.
Speaking of fascism, when will general spellcheckers learn that "Wikipedia" is not misspelled?
On 8/26/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 25, 2006, at 9:53, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I've always liked "Wikipedia - the people's encyclopedia" _______________________________________________
Wikipedia is to information what democracy once was to government: of the people, for the people, by the people.
Exactly! I realise that people might associate it with a certain Peoples republic (ironic, since said People's Republic are blocking us), But I really do think it describes us fairly well.
And by the way, when did "people" become one of those loaded, Newspeak words, that cannot be used without making a reference to something else. You know like communist, socialist, terrorist, freedom, liberal, etc. Maybe a better slogan would be "Wikipedia - The encyclopedia for the masses" or "Wikipedia - The encyclopedia for the rest of us". If we're going down that path maybe we should just fess up and call it "I can't believe it's not Britannica!" and post a picture of an "<- I'm with stupid!" T-shirt on our frontpage.
Yeah, I guess, "Wikipedia - The free encyclopedia" is a pretty good slogan. How about we just remove the "that anyone can edit" part? That seems like a good solution to me...
--Oskar
On 8/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/26/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 25, 2006, at 9:53, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I've always liked "Wikipedia - the people's encyclopedia" _______________________________________________
Wikipedia is to information what democracy once was to government: of the people, for the people, by the people.
Exactly! I realise that people might associate it with a certain Peoples republic (ironic, since said People's Republic are blocking us), But I really do think it describes us fairly well.
Information of the world, unite!
On 26 Aug 2006, at 14:33, Sam Korn wrote:
On 8/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/26/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 25, 2006, at 9:53, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I've always liked "Wikipedia - the people's encyclopedia" _______________________________________________
Wikipedia is to information what democracy once was to government: of the people, for the people, by the people.
Exactly! I realise that people might associate it with a certain Peoples republic (ironic, since said People's Republic are blocking us), But I really do think it describes us fairly well.
Information of the world, unite!
There is a risk that we will put all primary sources out of business:
Wikipedia - the encyclopaedia you used to be able to edit.
On 8/26/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 26 Aug 2006, at 14:33, Sam Korn wrote:
On 8/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/26/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 25, 2006, at 9:53, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I've always liked "Wikipedia - the people's encyclopedia" _______________________________________________
Wikipedia is to information what democracy once was to government: of the people, for the people, by the people.
Exactly! I realise that people might associate it with a certain Peoples republic (ironic, since said People's Republic are blocking us), But I really do think it describes us fairly well.
Information of the world, unite!
There is a risk that we will put all primary sources out of business:
Wikipedia - the encyclopaedia you used to be able to edit.
Journals seem to be pretty robust (although there are various projects to change the current system) and there seem to be a large number of people rather attached to dead tree technology.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi all, I was wondering if we wanted to try and get some kind of one-sentence slogan/summary/motto/mantra to explain exactly how authoritative Wikipedia is and isn't, and how it should and should not be used. Two thoughts that came to mind:
- Wikipedia is a tertiary source. (Not a primary source, not really
even a secondary source - we discuss and collate primary sources).
- Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up *anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*, because we're always based on other sources which have more detail than we do).
I like the second one. It can even be more effective without the parenthetical explanation. Some of the best flowers grow in manure, so you don't want to be digging around them too much.
Given past experience around here, I think the first one would produce endless arguments about the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Some of the pointed minds we encounter would be best employed as paper spikes on somebody's desk.
Ec