I dont agree that wikipedia should have frozen pages. My thought is
that all of the 'approved' articles be copied to Nupedia, where you
can have a fixed reference.
At Nupedia, they can then undergo peer review, and then published
as 'qualified' articles. I know that the current review cycle would
have some problems with the amount of change that wikipedia
generates, but Nupedia is the place where stable, if not the greatest
in the world articles should be referenced.
A suggestion: Perhaps it means that nupedia will have to change a bit
and show 'non-reviewed' articles, but it would let the wiki process
at wikipedia continue.
The author of the NYT article told me that it will be coming out next
Thursday, Sept. 20, though this isn't absolutely certain.
You can bet we are going to be *very* busy when that happens. I hope
you'll participate then to help keep the newbies in line. :-)
I just uploaded the current version of my PHP script to the Nupedia CVS
repository. Jason is currently a little busy, so I though it can't do any
harm. It's at the "php.wikipedia" directory. It's not working, Jason will
have to copy it to the "real" site and set some password for database
This version already includes full namespace support as I described it. Some
security has been added :
- Users without special privileges ("normal" users) can edit only pages in
the namespaces ":" (blank; the normal wikipedia space), "user:", "talk:",
- Operators can edit articles in any EXISTING namespace
- Sysops can also add new namespaces
So, we can have a "stable:" or "current:" namespace, or a "2001:", "2002:"
and "2003:", or "2001-09", or "2002-May", or all together, for our annual
versions. Simple as that :)
Just for clarification :
- Sysops can give users sysop and/or operator rights
- Operators can give users operator rights
- As initial sysops, I'd suggest Larry and Jimbo for the contents part, as
well as Jason, Toan and myself for the technical part...
[I am writing this as a "letter-to-the-editor," if you actually have such
a feature. If not, feel free to ignore this.]
I'm writing in response to your article about Wikipedia published a few
days ago. I'm Wikipedia's main organizer. I simply wanted to comment on
one remark reported in the article, which was as follows: "Walter Bender,
executive director of MIT's Media Laboratory, believes that what makes
Britannica a valuable resource is the scope and depth of its editing, and
free Web-based encyclopedias such as Wikipedia will probably never be able
to compete with that."
Of course, right now Britannica has a greater scope and depth than
Wikipedia--but that's not surprising, because Wikipedia got its start just
eight months ago. But in the interim we have created over 10,000
articles--the best of which are easily comparable to Britannica's
articles--and are now adding nearly 2,000 articles per month, according to
one resident statistician. These articles are all constantly improving,
as well. Many of our active participants have Ph.D.'s or other advanced
degrees, and are college professors and graduate students or are
highly-trained professionals. Significantly, Wikipedia's *rate* of growth
has been steadily increasing--in terms of article numbers and quality,
traffic to the website, and attracting more highly-qualified contributors.
So it seems very reasonable to think that within a few years the project
will surpass Britannica in both breadth and depth. There's nothing
Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D.
As a currently practicing professor who receives papers with web citations
I'd like to note that the *date of viewing* is included in all standard
citation forms for internet information.
Wikipedia may be unusual in changing frequently, but it is quite common to
find pages cited by students that have disappeared. After all, I have to
check all my links off of my homepage every semester before recommending
them for student use!
I like the FoW page. Wouldn't it be quite handy to have web based statistics page of wikipedia's server so we could track the referrers and know who is linking to us???
wojtek lukasz pobratyn
Mmm czesc to ja. Chcesz mnie ... rozebrac?
OK, zagraj ze mna w ruletke [ http://miss.onet.pl/start.html ]
I think it would be a great idea to try to get Wikipedia linked to from
some really popular websites that don't already link to us.
Where is a handy list of URLs (not companies, but URLs) that point to,
say, the top 500 Media Metrix sites? Somebody on this list must know.