On WikiEN-L:
I wrote:
>Do we still need to be so oriented toward editing when we already have well
>over 4,000 edits a day and nearly 200,000 articles? A slow-down in editing
>and increased emphasis on getting things in stable form should become more of
>a priority. IMO, the best way to market that - both internally and externally
>- is by using nupedia.org to host the stable content.
Tarquin responded:
>I agree with everything mav said here.
>I just *HATE* the name Nupedia.
>It's the "nu" for "new", and also the fact that "new" won't
>really mean much in, say, 20 years' time.
Suggestions....? I like name 'Nupedia' because;
1) it is a brand we already own
2) we already control the .com and .org
3) while not as famous as the name 'Wikipedia', it still is known of by many
people (over 40,000 hits on Google)
4) it is easy to pronounce
5) the 'nu/new' connection relates to the underlying concept (free content
created by a worldwide community of voluntary authors), not its age (thus it
will take the 'newness' a few hundred years to wear off - assuming that the
free content movement really takes hold).
However, what about the other Wikimedia projects? Should we try to buy-up
other 'nu' domains? At first I thought it would be a great idea to have a
Wikimedia-owned publishing house called "Numedia" but alas that fine name is
taken http://numedia.com/ (the .org is owned by somebody else). But 'Nubooks'
would work (.org and .com available)... NumediaPublishing.org/com is
available but that name is too long.
Other problems:
*Nusource.com taken http://Nusource.com/ (.org available, however)
*Nuquote.com taken by a cybersquatter (.org available, however)
*Nutionary - NOOOO!!! Don't even think of it! Terrible, terrible name.
*Nudictionary.org/.com available but the name is just too long and too bland,
IMO.
We do own Gnupedia.org/.com but as somebody else already mentioned that that
title would indicate a stronger connection to the GNU Project than actually
exists and may in fact infringe on their trademark.
But I really don't think 'wiki' should be in the title of any Wikimedia
content that is published in non-editable form (that would include any static
website it is hosted on and any hardcopy such as books or a '1.0' version of
Wikipedia).
If you can't edit it, it ain't wiki!
So even though 'nu' can't be expanded to cover static versions of all
Wikimedia content, I think we should still use the 'Nupedia' name for a
static version of Wikipedia content unless a better scheme is hatched.
Better suggestions, of course, most welcome (especially if it is a single name
that could cover /all/ Wikimedia static content). Such a name could be used
by a Wikimedia publishing house - it in turn would publish Wikimedia-derived
encyclopedias, books, dictionaries and source texts after that content went
through some sort of approval process.
Just some thoughts of mine. Please add yours.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
So, I've started a list of requirements for categorization
implementations, to make sure that whatever we decide to do will
actually do what we need.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization_requirements
People interested in categorization should probably take a peek.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou <evan(a)wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide
> Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household
> name.
> I am confident that in a year's time it will be a
> name that is as well
> known as or better than Britannica and Encarta.
I just want to say that I agree completely. We're in
the process of branding a name here. "Wikipedia 1.0"
seems perfect to me. It shows that it's stable and
includes the same name. "Wikipedia 2004" could also
be used if we want to publish a new stable version
every year like traditional encyclopedias.
Chuck
=====
We are the Esperanto speakers who say "Ni!"
http://www.esperantomobilo.org/
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
> In the Linux world, distributors have a brand name
> that they glue
> on in addition to a version number, so "Red Hat
> Linux 8.0" is the
> actual product you can get, and there's no "Linux
> 8.0" unless it's
> a far-future kernel. :-)
Yep, just remember that Wikipedia isn't necessarily a
Linux project. I mean, the servers run on Linux, but
I'd imagine that most of us editors are on other
operating systems and some of us aren't all that
familiar with the open-source world. After reading
the dialogue, I'm now in favor of the more
user-friendly title "Wikipedia 2004".
For the working version, why not Nudepedia? :-P or for
us Esperanto speakers: Nudpieda (barefoot). haha
Chuck
=====
We are the Esperanto speakers who say "Ni!"
http://www.esperantomobilo.org/
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household name.
I am confident that in a year's time it will be a name that is as well
known as or better than Britannica and Encarta.
I think it would be too bad if we cause confusion by introducing a new
name for a printed edition.
Image Britannica had called their online version "Amerannica", what a
waste PR wise.
In my view people will be less confused when online and printed
Wikipedia differ in content under the same name.
Online Brittanica is also different from printed edition, because of
regular updates of the online version.
Erik Zachte
.
Sorry if this is a doublepost...
In article <3FE0DA77.1020100(a)livejournal.com>,
Ralesk Ne'vennoyx <ralesk-PI1xv8u4z2E71oyAeX+DCg(a)public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Walter Vermeir wrote:
> > I like very much the name "Encyclopedia Galactica".
> >
> > It is like the objectieve of Wikipedia "a collaborative project to
> > produce a free and complete encyclopedia in every language" , a very
> > bold name.
> >
> Encyclopædia Galactica would clash with Isaac Asimov's EG ;) And
> it's perhaps a bit too bold. How about something less big, like the
> Earth instead of the Galaxy... Encyclopædia Terra or something like
> that, I don't speak Latin... Then again, neither really looks
wiki-ish.
Isn't the Encyclopædia Galactica Douglas Adams? Hmm..it is, but it's
also Asimov. Is that a reference I never got, or a coincidence?
Anyways...
What about Encyclopædia Nova? It's got a nice sound (stiff and solid,
like a 'real' encyclopedia :)), it doesn't claim wiki-ness (wikosity?),
it doesn't attempt to revive or redefine Nupedia, and it makes
reference to Nupedia (whether 'new' was actually an inteded meaning of
not). And Google seems to think the name's free.
Peter
Sorry if this is a doublepost...
In article
<87hdzz47r1.fsf(a)unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us>,
Evan Prodromou <evan-+DxIcwYt55H9qxiX1TGQuw(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>>>> "JW" == Jimmy Wales
<jwales-KK9S75Hv+MAAvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org>
> >>>>> writes:
>
> JW> But I have this counter-thought -- while I do agree that the
> JW> idea of 1.0 has been causing people to do some things that I
> JW> don't really think are best, I think the solution to this is
> JW> to hurry up and actually implement a plan/software/whatever to
> JW> permit those who have deletionist tendencies (no insult meant
> JW> by the term!) to work on that.
>
> I wonder if there's a way to use fields metadata:
>
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-value_pairs
>
> ...to start tagging articles for 1.0. Say, "[[release=1.0]]" or
> something.
>
> ~ESP
Cosider this my voice of support. Or this:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Field-value_pairs
Peter
(P.S. Please consider this a shameless plug for a conversation and not
an even more shameless 'me too' post.)
Sorry if this is a doublepost...
In article <024b01c3c4f7$0398af10$74001c12@reflection>,
"The Cunctator" <cunctator-+4VDYf+6WHMAvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> > From: Chuck Smith on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:20 PM
> >
> > > Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household
> > > name.
> > > I am confident that in a year's time it will be a
> > > name that is as well
> > > known as or better than Britannica and Encarta.
> >
> > I just want to say that I agree completely. We're in
> > the process of branding a name here. "Wikipedia 1.0"
> > seems perfect to me. It shows that it's stable and
> > includes the same name. "Wikipedia 2004" could also
> > be used if we want to publish a new stable version
> > every year like traditional encyclopedias.
>
> There's a number of naming issues here; the name for the frozen
version,
> and the name for the project of creating that version.
>
> In terms of naming the frozen version, I prefer Wikipedia 2004 to
> Wikipedia 1.0.
I agree. Wikipedia 1.0 implies that there will be a Wikipedia 1.1,
which I would interpret as professing to be what Wikipedia itself is,
the in-between revisions (yes, it's more than that, but I'm speaking
purely in terms of published versions). Wikipedia 2004 implies that it
is the 2004 *edition* (rather that release) of the Static Wikipedia
(one hell of an oxymoron, mind you). The reference is to an edition of
an electronic reference material, rather than to a release of a piece
of software, the development process of which is, I think, not
applicable to this project. I'm having a bad night for clarity.
Peter
Andre wrote:
>Jimbo wrote:
>>...but I think that a formalized 1.0 process would
>>tend to prevent people from thinking of wikipedia-
>>the-website as the sort of place where we need to
>>limit ourselves to some finite number of topics.
>
>Get lost!
That was uncalled for. Why the hostility? Wikipedia is
an encyclopedia of connected and cross-referenced
encyclopedias. If somebody wants to start an
encyclopedia on a particular genre or topic area (such
as cartoons, biology, history or even smaller topics
such as works of literature like Lord of the Rings)
then that is fine. So long as the information is
confirmable, presented in an NPOV manor, is
on-topic/encyclopedic, and there is enough info to
fill a set of good-sized articles, then why should we
limit what we have in Wikipedia?
What and how much to include in '1.0' is another
matter since we have space constraints (even for a CD
version).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
>Anthere wrote:
>
>> As a matter of interest, I would be curious to know how those
>> internationals, that are split between wikipedias assume
>that. I find
>> extremely disconcerting to see two parts of a "common" project being
>> so different. It is a bit like that psychological disorder :-)
>
>I feel this too.
>When I try to provide "crosstalk" from En: policies to Fr: and
>vice-versa, I get no results.
>fr: says "but we're not en:"
>en: says "but we are en:!"
Each wikipédia has his own rules. Often the same than en:, but not everytime. I think each wikipedia must have his own rules. Respecting some choosed by the wikimedia fundation, npov for instance.
It could be a work for the wikimedia fundation ?