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.
>They get this acknowledment right now by supporting the
>free encyclopedia idea *directly*.
And the people who commit free software patches to CVS are not *directly*
supporting free software? I don't get your logic.
>I bet most of the contributors will have a very bad
>feeling about not doing the "final" thing any more,
>but being just the idiots who do all the work for some
>guys and girls at Nupedia who will be the "gods" which
>- at the end of the day - decide rather authorically what
>is good content and what is nonsens.
I'm not advocating that Wikipedia should not also have its own process for
making what it calls a stable version - I'm just saying that the result of
any such a process can be further certified by an additional process. If a
particular result of that process isn't liked by Wikipedians then it doesn't
have to be used in Wikipedia (simply revert the page).
The reason why the Nupedia brand makes sense is because any "stable" version
of an article would necessarily be static - nothing wiki about static. There
is furthermore nothing "wiki" about a printed version.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
>We are not talking about a "checked by" for a
>stable version within Wikipedia, we are talking
>about seperate articles (e.g. in the domain
>www.nupedia.org) that were taken out of the
>Wikipedia, copyedited and then placed under
>a new label.
Just like anybody else who uses our content:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content
Except all changes are made on Wikipedia - Wikipedia benefits and gets full
credit.
>Do I understand it right, that you declare this
>attempt to be failed right now?
I you are talking about the way things are done on Wikipedia right now then I
would have to certainly disagree - Wikipedia has been an astounding success.
But it still is is in an unstable state - the content will even be more useful
if checked and certified. This can be done in different ways - it is healthy
to discuss those.
-- mav
We can use Erik's idea for adding neat features to the Brilliant prose page as
a start. Then that page can act as a queue for articles that Nupedia can
take-up and then put through a simplified Nupedia polishing process by area
experts. The Sifter software can be used to make this easy but it is not
really needed.
But a stable distribution vetted by area experts (at the very least by people
with baccalaureate degrees in the subject area) /is/ a very important thing
for us to have.
With such a system set-up we can start to work toward 1.0 status.
-- mav
Kpjas wrote:
>The Sifter idea was a compromise but a
>better proposal than using dead Nupedia.
Nupedia, right now, is dead. The /only/ thing that we would use is the name
under a new framework.
-- mav
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> sgilbert(a)nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> > I believe Nupedia (Wikipedia's parent encyclopedia project) used
> > XML markup. That project had a division of labour between writers
> > and editors: the former simply wrote the articles, while the latter did
> > all the fancy markup.
>
> And it worked well enough to generate 12 articles in 18 months, at an
> exorbitant cost to me. :-(
Don't be sad, Jimbo. Without Nupedia, there would be no
Wikipedia, so you got over 140,000 articles and counting for your
cash. Of course, they aren't all good, but surely there's more than
12. :)
Stephen G.
-------
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org
The mailing list Textbook-l is now also on gmane
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
Use the newsserver "news.gmane.org"
The name of the newsgroup is
"gmane.org.wikimedia.textbook"
gmane is a mailing list to usenet interfase
For posting to the newsgroup you must be a list member. The first time you
post to the newsgroup you will receive an email for verification of your
email address, which is normal. If you work by means of the newsgroup you
probably no longer wants to receive the messages by email. To disable email
delivery go to "Edit Options".
( see http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l )
All the other Wikipedia mailing lists are also available on gmane.
Search for wikipedia on the list of newsgroups of news.gmane.org
--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be
I got this email this morning. I'm not sure what the sender means
by my "advertising [my] business as well"--possibly the note on my
user page that I'm available for freelance editing. Mostly, I'm not sure
who she (or he) is, or what prompted this, so I'm passing it along
in case it makes sense to anyone else.
Vicki
>X-From_: apache(a)larousse.wikipedia.org Fri Jul 25 20:39:52 2003
>X-Original-To: vr(a)panix.com
>Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:39:48 GMT
>To: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr(a)redbird.org>
>Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
>From: Mallarray <mallarray(a)aol.com>
>Reply-To: Mallarray <mallarray(a)aol.com>
>To: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr(a)redbird.org>
>X-Mailer: Pediawiki interuser e-mailer
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0
> tests=none
> version=2.54
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.54 (1.174.2.17-2003-05-11-exp)
>
>Re my book plug as you call it - you seem to be advertising your business
>as well. Fair enough as it's Wikipedia I will amend it.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
Dear Sirs,
I was not able to find a "contact us" or a "public relations" email address of wikipedia, so please redirect this letter to the appropriate person.
I wrote an unconventional hyperlinked online booklet on ecology. http://www.geocities.com/tgcp2084
I put your URL http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages as one of the hyperlinked references of it.
Please send me a note if you have any objection, and your URL will be eliminated from the reference list.
Your site has been cited in the specific page http://www.geocities.com/tgcp2084/2threatnature.html
I plan to put more hyperlinked references from wikipedia, since the style and content of wikipedia is much appropriate to the criteria explained in the reference page http://www.geocities.com/tgcp2084/reference.html
I will be pleased to receive any comment/suggestions from you about the online booklet.
(please note that the site is still in construction - you might encounter some error notifications - please ignore them)
Best regards
Daniel Shalev
ddshalev(a)netvision.net.il
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> > I think that if Wikipedia ever puts out a "stable" version for
> > distribution, the articles should be structured with XML. That's a job
> > for dedicated editors with a good knowledge of document structure.
> > Forcing it on the live wiki would, in my unproven opinion, by harmful.
>
> Perhaps. Nevertheless, I'd like to give it a try; I'm seriously
> interested in a Wiki using the TEI DTD as its markup language.
> Unfortunately, my resources (time, knowlegde in hacking) are too
> limited to such a project come true on my own.
That would be interesting... and a lot of work. You would want
some editing tools that go beyond what the typical wiki provides.
b schewek wrote:
> Maybe the 'textbook' would be interested?
> They were/are discussing the 'print' business.
I believe Nupedia (Wikipedia's parent encyclopedia project) used
XML markup. That project had a division of labour between writers
and editors: the former simply wrote the articles, while the latter did
all the fancy markup.
Stephen G.
-------
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org
Anthere wrote:
> Do not resign :-) Just take it easy and slowly.
<snip>
> But, there is no hurry, having all your issues solved
> in a month is *not* gonna happen. We are here for a
> long time anyway :-)
I'm an adherent of uniqueness, diversity and individuality, but the
responses here seem to show that there is a status quo on "how a wiki
should look and feel" that is maintained and all wikis are forced to
conform to, for some reason (with the exception of the Esperanto wiki,
and the french logo). I find that repressive and creatively discouraging.
Each wikis is, after all, an independent internet website. I find it
really boring and dull that all the wikis look and feel the same. (I
sometimes confuse between Wikipedia and Wiktionary because they look so
similar).
A basic rule in marketing is to satisfy your audience. Since the
audience of, for example, the Hebrew wiki, is not the audience of, say,
the Polish wiki. I think each audience should have the right to choose
how their website would look and work.
The argument that all wikis should be identical because there is a
minority of bilingual pepole who work on more than two wikis is really
weak. Here's a better argument: I will design the hebrew site so it will
be very intuitive and will take almost no effort to learn how to use it,
yes, it would be different but very easy to use.
Wikimedia's wiki sites have hundereds of thousands of different articles
and encompass many different subjects and languages, why not let them
develop their own unique look and character? There can be a universal
Wikimedia logo that each wiki would be required to show, I have to say I
would be /proud/ to put that logo on the Hebrew wiki.
Hoping I won't get flamed for this,
Rotem