On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:31:24 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
( 3b) (It's the infrastructure/databases/operatingsystems/browsers themselves that facilitate this ease - not just "wiki." Still, we don't call ourselves the "inter...pedia" or the "web..pedia" for a reason: Those domain names were already taken. ;-) )
{{fact}}... WHOIS shows that interpedia.org was regisgtered 16-Jan- 2005, and webpedia.org on 20-Jul-2004, which are both after Wikipedia was founded in 2001.
Daniel R. Tobiasdan@tobias.name wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:31:24 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
{{fact}}... WHOIS shows that interpedia.org was regisgtered 16-Jan- 2005, and webpedia.org on 20-Jul-2004, which are both after Wikipedia was founded in 2001.
So I was wrong about those domain names being taken, unless there were previous lessors not shown on the history. But note that I used the dots (...) to indicate these as variables just so noone would get any ideas about specific particular domains.
Still the point about the words semantics remains valid, though I understand if we renamed the site - choosing to view ourselves under a different concept than "quick[ness]" - then the only major popular usage of a Hawaiian word in a formalistic educational context might vanish from the Earfh: The philosopher/semanticist in me still wants a change, even if the etymologist in me likes the idea that we use something other than Greek or Latin.
- Stevertigo
2009/8/29 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Daniel R. Tobiasdan@tobias.name wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:31:24 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
{{fact}}... WHOIS shows that interpedia.org was regisgtered 16-Jan- 2005, and webpedia.org on 20-Jul-2004, which are both after Wikipedia was founded in 2001.
So I was wrong about those domain names being taken, unless there were previous lessors not shown on the history. But note that I used the dots (...) to indicate these as variables just so noone would get any ideas about specific particular domains.
"Wiki" was a very important part of the name, I doubt anything like interpedia or webpedia were considered since they would fit Nupedia better. Wikipedia was never intended to be an online encyclopaedia in its own right, it was intended as a feeder project for Nupedia. It was well after the name was chosen that it was realised Wikipedia was a great idea on its own in isolation of Nupedia.
PS: Daniel, we know you read the digests, but would you please change the subject header in your replies to match the actual header of the thread? Thanks.
-Stevertigo