From: Jimmy Wales on Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:18 AM
The Cunctator wrote:
In terms of naming the frozen version, I prefer Wikipedia 2004 to Wikipedia 1.0.
Then I propose that we call it Wikipedia 2005, because I don't know if it'll be ready in 2004. :-)
Actually, I'm just joking, but my point is just that calling it by a year more or less commits us to a schedule, whereas if it takes 4 years to come up with 1.0, that'd be fine.
There are pros and cons, obviously.
For me there's a basic philosophical issue; version 1.0's represent a "finished product", completion.
Calling something "Wikipedia 1.0" is, in my mind, an oxymoron.
I don't want to promote the idea of a "complete and finished" version of Wikipedia--Wikipedia needs to be understood as an ongoing process.
"Wikipedia 0.1" doesn't have those philosophical problems.
The *reality* of the situation is that when all is said and done the title of the print version is likely to be "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia".
We can choose whatever name we want for the project to make it. I think Nupedia, with its history of using a certification process to develop articles, is an appropriate name for the project. But so would "the Wikipedia Snapshot Project" or "Skippy".