Jimmy-
But in a print version, maybe this article wouldn't be included: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Plutonium
Agreed. So long as the decision of what to print and what to avoid is never political (e.g. "Controversies about Jehovah's Witnesses are of limited interest -- they don't need to be put in the print version"), I have no problem with it. But all the fictional character stuff, for example, could be seriously trimmed for the printed edition.
Well, I'm with you on all of this. I have always liked the Nupedia name better
I always found "Nupedia" kind of vacuous, and people would probably constantly misspell it as "Newpedia". One thing I really like about Wiki[mp]edia is that it raises awareness of what wikis are and what they can be used for. In many articles about Wikipedia, people have noted that "Wikipedia is the largest wiki, but not the only one" and mentioned other wiki sites like TolkienWiki. Wikipedia has greatly contributed to the use of wikis as a technology. If Nupedia had used the wiki concept, some people might have successfully lobbied for not using the term wiki at all, because it is slightly obscure, eliminating this positive effect.
In a few years, everyone who knows Google will hopefully also have an idea what a wiki is. This would never be possible if we wouldn't openly promote the fact that we *are* a wiki. Also of note, many aspects of wiki philosophy have rubbed off on us, generally positively, and we are a recognized part of the wiki community.
I think the name Wikipedia resonates very well with our mission. It is fresh and different -- not just another encyclopedia -- while not being impossible to spell or pronounce (like "Kuro5hin"). I love the facial expressions it creates when people hear it for the first time. The immediate response I always received was curiosity.
Now the name Wiktionary, that's another story...
Regards,
Erik