On 23 Sep 2004, at 03:26, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Sep 22, 2004, at 6:40 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
My impression was that this isn't going to be a "reviewed" 1.0-style Wikipedia, but rather a plain old snapshot that's had all the images lacking the correct licencing tags automatically stripped out, and possibly the articles with {{stub}} in them stripped out as well (personally I think stubs should be left in, but IMO it's probably not a major issue either way). The downside of this approach is that it's bound to catch a few articles in a "bad" state, but the upside is that it will actually be possible to do it in the timeframe needed.
Certainly we could give them a stripped dump in that timeframe, but I think they'd be wasting a lot of money pressing it to disc in that state. I can't support this as described.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
<aol> I second Erik, Mark (Delirium) and Brion's concerns. The biggest issue is copyrights and another issue is to sort out the fluff from the stuff. (Admittedly there is alotta fluff in there at any given time, so no matter how quickly any fluff would get improved, the fluff would be in a ''snapshot'' and that needs sorting out.) I reckon an even remotely legally tenable and generally "decent enough" solution will probably take until AT LEAST winter 2005/2006, and probably a year longer. Unless Mandrake were ready to put in all that work (and they'd only have to pay a couple of thousand professional reviewers given the timeframe they're proposing), a suitable "review mechanism 2.0" would be about ''essential'' in order to "get there". Such a mechanism would still have to be (a) agreed upon, then (b) developed, then (c) deployed and it's only then that (d) the "getting-it-right" process proper can even START. This will take time. Especially because "(a)" should not be rushed.
I'm not under the impression that Mandrake are fully aware of what their proposal would entail. </aol>
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com