Stan Shebs wrote:
Chuck Smith wrote:
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.
So, ideas: "Wikipedia Pro 1.0" "Wikipedia Stable 2004" "Wikipedia Plus 1.0" "Best of Wikipedia 1.0" (BOW, but suggests "bow wow") "Wikipedia Select 2004" "Wikipedia Snapshot" or "Wikipedia Snap" "Bomis Wikipedia 1.0" :-)
I find myself coming around to the idea that "Wikipedia" needs to be part of the name. I agree that it would no longer be a wiki and just having the year in the title itself gives the impression that it is a snapshot. Thus any additional words will be reduncancies of some sort. Short titles are more attractive to the public..
There's a risk in trying to put too much into the first edition. I support the idea of relatively short production runs that can be easily sold out. The first edition especially is bound to have a lot of bugs and errors.. I even have doubts about whether a credible print copy can be produced in 2004. Once the first edition is ready, it should be easy to produce CD versions quarterly.
For specialized products, longer names are good too: "Wikipedia Encyclopedia of Ships and the Sea" "Wikipedia's Math-o-Rama" "Wikipedia Games Compleat 2004" "The Wikipedia Tree of Life: a comprehensive encyclopedia of plants, animals, and protista"
How about Wikimedia's own stamp catalog, with a numbering system that can compete with Scotts' overprotected proprietary one. Ec