From: Erik Zachte on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:40 PM
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 think it would be too bad if we cause confusion by introducing a new
name for a
printed edition. Imagine Britannica had called their online version
"Amerannica",
what a waste PR wise.
PR should be a concern, but it should hardly be our first concern.
My opinion on the particular namings of things is somewhat formless.
All /I/ know is that I believe I have identified a trend of people editing entries with an eye towards the print version, leading to (imho) astoundingly long and digressive entries which try to fit all the possibly relevant information on one page, with subtopics being redirected into the omnibus--and to dislike the necessary and important process of budding off detail into distinct entries.
Furthermore, I think that the combination of the natural inclination to use the inclusionary criteria valid for paper encyclopedias (without fully understanding the reasons for those criteria) and the inclination among some to edit towards a print version of Wikipedia lead people to overemphasize deletion as a tool.
It certainly may be the case that the promotion of "Wikipedia 1.0" has nothing to do with this behavior, but unless I am mistaken there is a pretty good overlap between those who are excited about and actively pushing to have the "certification" process and paper version be part of the Wikipedia project and those who actively delete pages and build long, hierarchical entries and resist the creation of more specific topics.
I could certainly be mistaken.
--tc