Daniel Mayer wrote:
Whoa! Waitaminute. Does that mean that all the element articles I've written have to be cut down in size? Most are two to five times longer than any Encarta, Britannica or Comptoms article on the same elements.
No, those are sweet. I just reviewed: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium for example. Sweet.
I say that we absolutely need to keep all the content where we really shine -- our ultimate goal is to be better than Britannica, to be the finest encylopedia in history. We won't get there by leaving out our best stuff.
But in a print version, maybe this article wouldn't be included: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Plutonium
Because as entertaining as it is, I'm not sure it would pass the test of universal interest that we might need to employ.
But I don't want any of us to prejudge right now just how we might proceed towards 1.0, nor about the details of what it'd look like, other than "roughly as good as Britannica".
If that is the case then can we finally accept a bit of reality and admit that Nupedia is a dead project that has been superceded by Wikipedia? We can then focus on picking the carcass of Nupedia clean and forward that domain name to Wikipedia. I tried to express an idea about how to revive Nupedia by making it a stable distribution of Wikipedia, but there was little support for it (and in fact some initial hostility). IMO, that was Nupedia's only hope.
Well, I'm with you on all of this. I have always liked the Nupedia name better, and wish that I had just opened a wiki on Nupedia a long long time ago, and left it at that. On the other hand, a clean break with the past avoided a *lot* of internal political wrangling.
(And as is well known, we never have any internal political wrangling now, ha ha!)
But now, Wikipedia is the bomb. The name is well known, unique, and perhaps a little less 'dot-com' and more 'organic' if you see what I mean.
One thing I never want is for Wikipedia proper, the site that we all know and love, be 'ghettoized' by a 1.0/"Sifter".
--Jimbo