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