Stan Shebs wrote:
> But if you make small good edits in a separate Nupedia,
> they won't find their way back to Wikipedia, which might or might
> not be desirable...
Read mav's lips: No new no fork!
Er, no new fork!
If Nupedia participants edit the contents of an article, the edits take
place on Wikipedia. Copyediting, corrections, re-wording all take
place on Wikipedia.
I think the only editing that Nupedia should do separately from
Wikipedia is XML markup.
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
> Actually, that's not at all what I'm worried about. ;-)
> What I'm most worried about is that Wikipedia will lose contributors,
> because most of them won't get a choice to decide what's in the "real"
> encyclopedia and therefore lose interest. The closer (the more
> "officially") Nupedia is associated with Wikipedia, the less interesting
> it will be to spend time for Wikipedia, because everything one is doing
> there is just the "foreplay" for the "real thing" Nupedia.
Ok, got it. ;-)
> I admit that I have my personal problems with the Nupedia editing policy,
> and the way authors are treated there as more or less irrelevant (because
> the important persons aren't the authors, but the almighty editors). I
> once offered two ready 2 page articles on "Sauna" and "Sherry" for the
> Nupedia project. I got an awnser like this (I'm exaggerating here, to make
> my point clear): "It's nice, thank you, but can you please strip it down
> to one paragraph, then we will consider to put it in the editing process
> as soon as we've found an editor suitable to the subject".
Yes, there was some rule about having "brief versions" of all
articles, in order to cover breadth first, then depth.
> Guess what? I
> never thought of Nupedia any more, and I never heard of them, too. I doubt
> if Nupedia (if revived and taking [[Sauna]] and [[Sherry]] from the
> Wikipedia will ever be able to find someone (or even a group of people!)
> with a university degree in either Saunology or Sherryology that is
> willing to work for free and will "approve" those two articles.
That's one of my big problems with most ideas of expert reviewers.
Although most people advocating expert review deny equating
expertise with PhDs, it's quite difficult to divide up all the
knowledge we intend to cover into neat little topics with lead
reviewers. Who is an expert in long-haul trucking? In bread
making? Saunas? Probably not university professors.
> But now back to the subject: Imagine what would happen if the title page
> of Wikipedia wouldn't say any longer: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free
> encyclopaedia", but instead:
> "Welcome to Wikipedia, here you can upload articles that probably will go
> into the free Nupedia encyclopaedia editing process some day if the people
> there like it and have the right approved editors for your subject".
No one is proposing this. The "sifter" type proposal (being
championed by Daniel Mayer at the moment) involves no changes
whatsoever to Wikipedia. Whatever the expert reviewers are doing
with our articles, life for us Wikipedians doesn't change.
Erik's proposal is that Wikipedia itself produce a stable (i.e.
unchanging) version by linking to specific versions of an article in
its history. No editorial boards or major changes, save a protected
Brilliant Prose page.
> Again - If Nupedia wants to use Wikipedia articles (forking them
> or not) -
> they're free to do it, the License perfectly allows for that. Just go
> ahead and do it - there will be enough Wikipedia editors merging back the
> approved articles to Wikipedia, both will profit from that. (However I'd
> like to see how that's going to work with that silly GNU FDL requesting to
> cite all the history. Merging a history from Nupedia and one from
> Wikipedia in the Wikipedia talk page (where else?) must be fun!)
One of the nasty aspects of the GFDL. I often wish the Creative
Commons licenses were around when we started...
> But I strongly oppose the Wikipedia *supporting* that in any further way.
> It's like shooting ourselfs in the knee (is that a valid phrase in
Very close. In English, we shoot ourselves in the foot. :)
> Apart from that, there are some problems at Wikipedia that
> should be adressed by developers first (performance, searching, just two
> name a few.) I don't see a reason why one should spend development time to
> make Wikipedia suit for the Nupedia editing process.
I completely agree that performance and searching should take
priority at this point. However, as I said above, no one is proposing
we modify Wikipedia for a Nupedia-type editing process.
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
Stephen G. wrote:
>I think what Ulrich is most worried about
>is he doesn't want a stable encyclopedia
>to be a fork. This can be easily avoid by puting
>a link to the current Wikipedia article on hte
>Nupedia version, labeled "Edit the latest version
>of this article".
Exactly - I've said several times that all editing will be on Wikipedia.
>Again - If Nupedia wants to use Wikipedia articles
>(forking them or not) - they're free to do it, the
>License perfectly allows for that. Just go ahead
>and do it
Thank you! Exactly my point. But I would not support any fork - all editing
goes onto Wikipedia. I have not advocated /any/ change to Wikipedia other
than agree with Erik on his idea. I /have/ advocated dramatic changes to
>there will be enough Wikipedia editors merging
>back the approved articles to Wikipedia, both will
>profit from that.
Read my lips; No new no fork.
>But I strongly oppose the Wikipedia *supporting*
>that in any further way.
Perhaps we need a Wikimedia mailing list because I was talking about a way to
revive Nupedia which is a Wikimedia project, BTW.
>It's like shooting ourselfs in the knee
And the Linux volunteer free software coders are harmed by GNU/Linux
The Linux kernel has its own stable/unstable configuration and so do the
distributors. Both work together to create a better product.
In HTML, that's easy. If you want to cite some sentences you will go
Once upon a time, and it was a very good time, etc. pp.
And verses? Addin "br" elements should do:
Ihr naht euch wieder, schwankende Gestalten,<br>
Die früh sich einst dem trüben Blick gezeigt.<br>
Versuch ich wohl, euch diesmal festzuhalten?<br>
Fühl ich mein Herz noch jenem Wahn geneigt?<br>
Ihr drängt euch zu! nun gut, so mögt ihr walten,<br>
Wie ihr aus Dunst und Nebel um mich steigt;<br>
Mein Busen fühlt sich jugendlich erschüttert<br>
Vom Zauberhauch, der euren Zug umwittert.
And wikipedia? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novalis :
:Wenn nicht mehr Zahlen und Figuren<br>
:Sind Schlüssel aller Kreaturen,<br>
:Wenn die, so singen oder küssen<br>
:Mehr als die Tiefgelehrten wissen,<br>
:Wenn sich die Welt ins freie Leben <br>
:Und in die Welt wird zurückbegeben,<br>
:Wenn dann sich wieder Licht und Schatten<br>
:Zu echter Klarheit werden gatten<br>
:Und man in Märchen und Gedichten<br>
:Erkennt die wahren Weltgeschichten,<br>
:Dann fliegt vor einem geheimen Wort<br>
:Das ganze verkehrte Wesen fort.
This will come out with way:
<dl><dd>Wenn nicht mehr Zahlen und Figuren<br>
</dd><dd>Sind Schlüssel aller Kreaturen,<br>
The horror. Don't add empty <p>s for formatting purposes. Don't
misuse broken(!) definition lists for formatting purposes. Leaving out
"dt" renders the HTML code invalid.
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | _-\_<,
ke(a)suse.de (work) / keichwa(a)gmx.net (home) | (*)/'(*)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
> >With an "official" cannibalization of Wikipedia arcticles for
> >Nupedia articles there would be no content - people do not
> >like it to write without being acknowledged.
> What are you talking about? By law the Nupedia article would have to give
> full credit to Wikipedia and have a link back. Our content is already
> being used in many, many other places as well - this is not cannibalism.
> That is the whole point of the GNU FDL - re-usability of the text.
I think what Ulrich is most worried about is he doesn't want a
stable encyclopedia to be a fork. This can be easily avoid by puting
a link to the current Wikipedia article on hte Nupedia version,
labeled "Edit the latest version of this article".
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Well, here's the thing. Our Main Page is protected. Our Main Page links to
> the Brilliant Prose page, which would also be protected. The Brilliant
> Prose page would only link to verified revisions of articles. A user can
> choose this path
> Main Page->Brilliant prose->Article
> And they will never see an "unstable" article -- these pages would always
> be in a reasonable state. It is the same thing as a separate site, but
> happens entirely within Wikipedia.
My first reaction is to be against this; I don't like the idea of locking
down pages in general, and Brilliant Prose is something I think
everyone should be able to add to. But, I'm reserving judgement
until there's more discussion.
Three things off the top of my head:
1. Who can add to brilliant prose? Sysops? What makes me (for
example) more qualified to judge brilliant prose about the spectrum
of human knowledge?
2. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that readers quickly
become writers. If we were to use particular versions from article
histories as stable articles, we'll need some way to allow readers
to easily move into editing mode, i.e. an "Edit the current version of
this article" link.
3. The synthesis of the first two concerns: what happens when
there are errors in the stable version? Mistakes can be corrected in
the current version, but only sysops will be able to change which
version is listed on the locked Brilliant Prose page. Thus, it's
possible that the "stable" version could have more errors than the
"development" version of a given article.
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia