Limholt wrote: 1. We do need a sifter project and a
stable base. As more outside references (google, web sites, etc.) point to Wikipedia, I'd like the casual reader/browser to find a worthwhile product.
The above assumes that whats on the WP is not worthwhile -- this after countless thoughts on the merits of a wiki -- why they are wrong about us -- people here ask "whats wrong with us?" Nothings wrong with the WP -- maybe some better inter-language connectivity ( reverse language links?)
Limholt:2. I'd like to see the electronic version
kept under the Wikipedia brand.
This "branding" concept is irrelevant -- marketers, accordint to the normal laws of capitalist S&D shouldt touch WP with a ten foot pole! Good! at 150k articles in three years, Id say Jims roll of the dice after a frustrated and expensive failure of Nupedia was a rather successful venture. Wouldnt you?
- The BP process seems OK, adding some controls to
limit access and movement (syssop status?) to the en0100 (version 1.00) protected pages. Technically, the en000 page doesn't need to be a database entry, just a reference to the time stamped page.
"Access. " "Limits" - wrong. Its important not to confuse process-perfection with ways that interfere with the interest of the public to give you their free time. Take away the fun -- and youll go (using Burning Man as an example) from a place of freedom and liberty people riding around on motorcycles naked with shotguns duct-taped to their thighs -- to one with a zillion restrictions and fees this way till Sunday. Blech.
-S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com