Matt wrote:
The problem with a fork is that you'd leave most of the community behind, and the community is A) large, B) full of experts in obscure topics, and C) knowledgable about the state of existing WP articles.
Having "stable-development" branches for articles seemed an excellent idea, and would effectively be an "in- project" fork...is this still under consideration?
I prefer the idea of "branching": we're writing encyclopedia articles, not computer software. I don't want to leave the community behind at all.
The foundation plans to hire professional editors and writers. They'll create, say, an additional 4,000 articles (on lofty topics, no doubt ;-) and also choose a subset of the half million Wikipedia articles to whip into shape.
But I'm recommending to the foundation that any articles it revises be posted back to Wikipedia immediately - as opposed to waiting until their publication day. (I don't know the legal niceties; is prompt re-publication a requirement, or can they hang on to their version in-house till the last minute?) BOTH projects would surely benefit from this cross- pollination.
I'd like to do whatever I can to reduce the 'forkiness' of the foundation's project and increase the 'give-and-take-iness' of it. Collaboration has been the key of Wikipedia's success; let's not change horses in midstream.
Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
[from wikien-l - Ed is talking about another foundation, not the WMF, who are interested in doing a Wikipedia distribution]
The foundation plans to hire professional editors and writers. They'll create, say, an additional 4,000 articles (on lofty topics, no doubt ;-) and also choose a subset of the half million Wikipedia articles to whip into shape. But I'm recommending to the foundation that any articles it revises be posted back to Wikipedia immediately - as opposed to waiting until their publication day. (I don't know the legal niceties; is prompt re-publication a requirement, or can they hang on to their version in-house till the last minute?) BOTH projects would surely benefit from this cross- pollination.
Heh. I wonder how their versions will go down with the Wikipedia community. Are they familiar with the history of Nupedia?
Have you read [[Category:Wikipedia 1.0]] ? I've been putting project pages into it that I think are relevant to the endeavour.
Also, the Wikimedia Foundation would beyond a doubt be highly interested in working with this other foundation!
I'd like to do whatever I can to reduce the 'forkiness' of the foundation's project and increase the 'give-and-take-iness' of it. Collaboration has been the key of Wikipedia's success; let's not change horses in midstream.
Indeed!
- d.