Erik wrote:
.... But before we move further into that direction I'd like to streamline the BP process, improve organization and build a culture of certification. Picking a proper name for the BP page is an important part of that. ....
Why not call it [[Wikipedia:Candidates for inclusion in Nupedia]]? We might as well do something with the excellent Nupedia name. IMO making Nupedia into a stable distribution of Wikipedia content would be a great idea (this would be similar to how the Linux and GNU tools are made into stable distributions; Nupedia, of course, would be more like Debian than RedHat).
Nupedia could then also be tasted with creating a paper version of our content in addition to having the full web-hosted versions of articles. Since space on paper is not cheap, many articles would have to boiled down to their basics for a paper version. A separate project would be better suited to do that so that Wikipedians could concentrate on what we have and continue to do best - add more content to Wikipedia and fix errors. This would also generate a great deal of interest among Wikipedians to make their articles shine enough for Nupedia-inclusion.
Of course all proper credit (and then some in the form of diffs comparing the Nupedia version with the current Wikipedia version) will be given to Wikipedia (Wikipedia's name should even be the subtitle of the revived Nupedia project).
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Daniel-
Why not call it [[Wikipedia:Candidates for inclusion in Nupedia]]?
Please don't. Nupedia is dead as far as I am concerned, and the only thing it lacks is a proper burial. Maybe we should create a page for it as soon as the Wiki memorial site is up.
Doing the certification within Wikipedia is the Right Thing: - We want everyone who knows something to contribute immediately if at all possible. An external website is an additional barrier to entry for doing so. It's the bold "Edit this page" link that gets people into the wiki process in the first place. -> Even if some links are duplicated on the "stable" version, you would effectively need a different user interface. When reading stable articles on Wikipedia itself, on the other hand, people transparently learn to use the UI, and can turn from reader to editor in seconds. - It is terrible marketing to promote one brand at the expense of another. By moving stable content to "that other site", we weaken the trust people have in Wikipedia, which will always be much larger and more comprehensive. - 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. - By building a separate site with separate rules, we risk to alienate Wikipedians who feel they do not belong to that project. A certification process, in order to work properly, needs to be accepted and internalized by the community. - Community building is essential to the success of our project. The last thing we need are more mailing lists, more points of entry, more discussion pages. The worst case scenario is that separate communities grow without talking much to one another.
The key argument, however, is that it doesn't give us a single advantage we don't get with an integrated process. Things should never be made more complex unless they have to.
Regards,
Erik
From: Erik Moeller on Friday, December 12, 2003 4:45 PM Daniel-
Why not call it [[Wikipedia:Candidates for inclusion in Nupedia]]?
Please don't. Nupedia is dead as far as I am concerned, and the only
thing
it lacks is a proper burial. Maybe we should create a page for it as
soon
as the Wiki memorial site is up.
Doing the certification within Wikipedia is the Right Thing:
<snip>
The basic difference of philosophy is whether one believes that the certification process is entirely compatible with the goals of constructing Wikipedia.
I don't believe that it is; I'm really not convinced that the goals of constructing a dead-tree encyclopedia are entirely compatible with the goals of constructing Wikipedia. In fact, I'm rather skeptical, and believe that I've seen signs of how having people thinking about that goal has led to deleterious effects on Wikipedia. That's why I think that it should be a distinct project, with a distinct name. I think "Nupedia" is a great name, but I'm not averse to a name with Wikipedia in it. "Wikipedia 1.0", however, has implications that I dislike. A core value of Wikipedia is its constant state of incompletion and lack of hierarchical, rigid control; certififying versions goes against that value.
You believe that it (the certification process) is compatible and beneficial to the larger goals of Wikipedia. If that is the case, then keeping it separate would not be the right choice.
Neither of us really knows, and there are plausible cases to be made on either side. The only way to find out is to run the experiment.
*However*, when running concurrent experiments, it's good practice to keep them apart. Integration is usually more complex than keeping things separate, not the other way around.
That said, I *do* think that we should do a better job of providing a common meeting space for everything that already exists under the Wikipedia umbrella.
For example, I think that you should only have to sign in once to the system to be able to contribute to any of the separate parts. I think that people should be able to integrate Recent Changes pages if they wish. I think people should be able to integrate watchlists if they wish.
Yes, we're talking a lot of coding that I'm not exactly jumping up to offer to do, so I know how much my advice is worth. And I know we are basically living in a codocracy (rule by those who write the software) so if you go forward there's little I can do but carp. My advice is meant in good faith.
Yours, tc
Brad-
I don't believe that it is; I'm really not convinced that the goals of constructing a dead-tree encyclopedia are entirely compatible with the goals of constructing Wikipedia. In fact, I'm rather skeptical, and believe that I've seen signs of how having people thinking about that goal has led to deleterious effects on Wikipedia.
Can you elaborate a bit on that?
Regards,
Erik
From: Erik Moeller on Friday, December 12, 2003 6:41 PM TC-
I don't believe that it is; I'm really not convinced that the goals
of
constructing a dead-tree encyclopedia are entirely compatible with
the
goals of constructing Wikipedia. In fact, I'm rather skeptical, and believe that I've seen signs of how having people thinking about
that
goal has led to deleterious effects on Wikipedia.
See [[User:The Cunctator/Agglomeration]] and [[User:The Cunctator/Deletionism]] for two trends that are beneficial to the goal of creating a dead-tree encyclopedia but are harmful (imho) to Wikipedia.