Merritt L. Perkins wrote:
> So you want a logo. What would you do with it?
> It should be easy to draw with a CAD program: lines, rectangles,
> circles, copy. How about a rectangle with vertical lines representing
> a shelf full of books? How many? 12? 24? 36? How about circles
> representing a compass and a clock representing different directions
> and time? How about mathematics, equations, coordinates, conic
> sections? Include electrical and chemical symbols, put them together.
> Don't make it too complicated. Merritt L. Perkins
We have many different entries in the logo contest. Feel free to
participate.
Stephen G.
-------
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
> Ooh, now there's an idea. Once I get the new digital camera I'm looking
at,
> mayhap I should go on a massive photography spree... anything and
> everything, and public domain the lot of it. I just might do that. (and I
> travel a -lot-...)
That's essentially what I've done; check out
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Montrealais/Images-Full . Of course I
don't get to travel too often, but I am an avid (if quite amateur)
photographer.
Matt
In my watchlist I can see:
(532 pages watched not counting talk pages; 680 total pages edited since
cutoff; checking watched pages for recent edits... show and edit
complete list.)
I'm not interested in this info; how can I disable it?
--
| ,__o
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | _-\_<,
ke(a)suse.de (work) / keichwa(a)gmx.net (home) | (*)/'(*)
These are my thoughts/suggestions/wishes for WP 1.0:
1. Wouldn't it be cool if instead of the way to geeky sounding name
"Wikipedia 1.0" we named it "Wikipedia 2004" or whichever year it gets
released? Just like Windows and Windows is successful!
2. I want pictures! WP is SERIOUSLY lacking in the graphics department.
Like http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle doesn't even have a picture of
a circle! My utopian wish is for every article to have a nice picture of
the article's topic on it. If I want to read about
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcox%2C_Nebraska then I probably want to
see a photo of it too. Unfortunately there aren't many good FDL
photographs out there.
3. Better search. The current one doesn't work very well. And the fact
that if you search for "Stalin" for example, takes you to the Stalin
page instead of a listing of pages containing the word Stalin is annoying.
4. Some organisation. WP is very chaotic. If I was to find the article
about Stalin without using the search function it would be very hard. I
think narrow topics are often hidden this way because it is hard to
browse for a topic.
5. Maybe we could start with releasing just a segment of the wiki-web?
It is very possible that there isn't enough interest in a printed WP
version. Maybe not in a CD version either and then someone has done alot
of wasted work. So instead why not release "Wikipedia: Organic
Chemistry" or "Wikipedia: World War II" as a litmus tet? There are
thousands of articles just waiting to be written in each of those subjects.
6. How would wiki-links be implemented in a text version? It's the most
important feature of WP imho, and I cant imagine how it could be made in
a practical manner.
BL
The deadline for submissions of new Wikipedia logos is August 20. For
those who think this is too short, I have started a vote on whether the
deadline should be extended or not.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_logo_contest
All Wikipedians interested in the contest should participate, otherwise
the vote will be biased in favor of extending the deadline (and again ..
and again ..).
Regards,
Erik
Erik Zachte wrote:
> Britannica is a well respected encyclopedia and rightly so. I think it
> wont hurt to set ourselves a goal and learn from the strengthes and
> weaknesses of the 'competition'. It is not a deathmatch though, just
> for honours.
True. However, I think it's also important to remember that
Wikipedia and Britannica, although similar in some respects, are
really very different beasts. Britannica's venture into the digital
world was slow and clumsy; by the time they has found their
footing, Microsoft's upstart Encarta was eating their lunch.
Someone pointed out before that Encarta is more our competition.
Even still, the first version of Encarta was simply the text of Funk
and Wagnal's encyclopedia rebranded, with added multimedia.
Wikipedia was born on the Internet, the strange and marvelous
result of a ménage à trois between Open Source, Nupedia and the
WikiWikiWeb.
> I would hate to see Wikipedia push Britannica out of the
> market in four years time.
As strange and marvelous as Wikipedia is, I can't see that
happening. :)
Stephen G.
Bj?rn Lindqvist wrote:
> Why cant ALL elections and ALL candidates in ALL countries be covered?
> Its important enough for alot of people, it is googleable information
> and it can be easily verified.
They can. Get writing!
Stephen G.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I
> susppect that our coverage contains strange and conspicuous 'holes' if
> we went through it via a "top down" approach, i.e. take lists of major
> topics and see if we've covered them.
Something I'm working on is a survey of the English Wikipedia's
"portal pages": the ones listed on the front page as the main
category scheme. Anyone can help if they like:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stephen_Gilbert/Portal_page_sur
vey
Stephen G.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Hm. Is there a machine readable list of all 75,000 of Britannica's
> articles somewhere? If we had such a list then we could perform this
> analysis; cross-check all article titles in en.Wikipedia with
> Britannica articles.
I don't think a direct comparison of titles would work very well.
Britannica's articles are what I would call monolithic, while
Wikipedia's are modular. For example, Britannica's article on a
given country is usually comprehensive abd spans 30+ pages,
though there is often a separate article for the country's history.
The Wikipedia article on the same country is really an entry point
to all the various articles we have on that country; it serves as a
quick overview with links to separate, more detailed articles.
Basically, I don't know if the different naming conventions and
fudamentally different information organizational methods of the two
encyclopedias would allow for a useful comparision of article titles.
Stephen G.