>BTW, I recently read that the Encarta atlas contains 1.8 million
>entries. 35000 single-cow-places will vanish in the long-term expansion
>of wikipedia. That is, if it continues to grow as we all wish.
We have a long way to go. :-)
I don't mind Ram-Man's bot so much, but I'd like to find an equivalent resource for towns *outside* of the U.S.
Mmost arguments in favor or against different
solutions seem to have been presented now, but I must say I lost track who wants
what. Furthermore it's a useless waste of energy to work on different
solutions without knowing which is wanted.
So I invite people to give their vote..
 not be changed at all.
 redirect depending on the browser's language setting to the wikipedia
in the prefered language.
 be a multilingual portal (1)
 other ______
(1) draft to be further improved at
with language of the welcome message derived from the browser settings and
prefered language highlighted.
this message is crossposted to intlwiki-l and wikipedia-l and to metawikipedia [[What to
do with www.wikipedia.org]]
>To avoid giving a skewed view of the pedia we need some sort of
>classification systems so that the RandomPage function first randomly
>chooses a topic and then returns a random article from that topic.
Actually, RandomPage gives an accurate view of wikipedia: we have far more of Ram-Man's articles than anything else, so they turn up more than anything else. A year ago we had far more Atlas Shrugged articles than anything else, so *those* would always turn up. The solution? Write more articles on other topics.
elian <elian(a)gmx.li> writes:
> www.wikipedia.org should:
>  not be changed at all.
>  redirect depending on the browser's language setting to the wikipedia
> in the prefered language.
> [x] be a multilingual portal (1)
>  other ______
I vote for the multilingual portal. It emphasizes the international
scope of the project. It is also a nobrainer that everyone understands.
People can bookmark the main page that they prefer.
Automatical redirection reminds me of the 'helpful' attitude of
Microsoft Word, which makes all kinds of decisions for me, that are
seldom what I want, and difficult to disable.
Just to point out the problem with voting:
People have been talking about the difficulty of decision-making. So I
invite people to vote on how decisions should be made.
Decisions about Wikipedia should be made
 based on votes on choices picked by one person
 slowly and incrementally
 only by qualified individuals
 other ______
Ed begged: :-)
>Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
>Help me out, here, man.
Well--what's so bad about setting up a page outlining an expected code of conduct? Really that's what we've banned people based on--violation of an expected code of conduct--so let's at least outline what we expect. It's just not fair to ban people based on rules that aren't explicitly and undeniably clear.
I propose e.g. 1) no name-calling; save it for Jerry Springer. 2) don't change other peoples' comments. 3) don't question whether other people are actually people.