These are my thoughts/suggestions/wishes for WP 1.0:
1. Wouldn't it be cool if instead of the way to geeky sounding name "Wikipedia 1.0" we named it "Wikipedia 2004" or whichever year it gets released? Just like Windows and Windows is successful!
2. I want pictures! WP is SERIOUSLY lacking in the graphics department. Like http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle doesn't even have a picture of a circle! My utopian wish is for every article to have a nice picture of the article's topic on it. If I want to read about http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcox%2C_Nebraska then I probably want to see a photo of it too. Unfortunately there aren't many good FDL photographs out there.
3. Better search. The current one doesn't work very well. And the fact that if you search for "Stalin" for example, takes you to the Stalin page instead of a listing of pages containing the word Stalin is annoying.
4. Some organisation. WP is very chaotic. If I was to find the article about Stalin without using the search function it would be very hard. I think narrow topics are often hidden this way because it is hard to browse for a topic.
5. Maybe we could start with releasing just a segment of the wiki-web? It is very possible that there isn't enough interest in a printed WP version. Maybe not in a CD version either and then someone has done alot of wasted work. So instead why not release "Wikipedia: Organic Chemistry" or "Wikipedia: World War II" as a litmus tet? There are thousands of articles just waiting to be written in each of those subjects.
6. How would wiki-links be implemented in a text version? It's the most important feature of WP imho, and I cant imagine how it could be made in a practical manner.
BL
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 03:42:13AM +0200, Björn Lindqvist wrote:
- I want pictures! WP is SERIOUSLY lacking in the graphics department.
Like http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle doesn't even have a picture of a circle! My utopian wish is for every article to have a nice picture of the article's topic on it. If I want to read about http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcox%2C_Nebraska then I probably want to see a photo of it too. Unfortunately there aren't many good FDL photographs out there.
That's a problem we're having since the beginning. Adding image upload and math mode helped a lot, but ...
= 1 =
See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maps for one thing that I'm currently working on that could improve situation a lot.
= 2 =
We could add more TeX-diagraming abilities similar to math mode.
The problem is that most of them would have rather limited usage. For example Wikipedia won't need more than a few dozens of go diagrams in close future, and that many can just be made offline.
The only TeX modes that I've seen that are general enough to be worth implementing on server side of Wikipedia (xypic) seemed extremely hard to use.
But we still need some modules for chemical formulas and "general" diagrams. If anybody knowns a TeX module that's both general enough and reasonably easy to use, please write about it.
Björn Lindqvist said:
- I want pictures! WP is SERIOUSLY lacking in the graphics department.
Like http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle doesn't even have a picture of a circle! My utopian wish is for every article to have a nice picture of the article's topic on it. If I want to read about http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcox%2C_Nebraska then I probably want to see a photo of it too. Unfortunately there aren't many good FDL photographs out there.
Ooh, now there's an idea. Once I get the new digital camera I'm looking at, mayhap I should go on a massive photography spree... anything and everything, and public domain the lot of it. I just might do that. (and I travel a -lot-...)
--Jake
Björn-
- Wouldn't it be cool if instead of the way to geeky sounding name
"Wikipedia 1.0" we named it "Wikipedia 2004" or whichever year it gets released? Just like Windows and Windows is successful!
Way to shoot down your own argument there by comparing us to a criminal proprietary software vendor ;-). I can live with something like "Wikipedia 2004" as long as whatever naming scheme is used is consistently used for each release, not changed all the time, and as long as the 2004 edition is actually released in 2004.
- I want pictures!
Join this WikiProject: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Illustration
I think we already have quite a few brilliant pictures, but we can certainly always use more.
My utopian wish is for every article to have a nice picture of the article's topic on it.
Difficult to do for copyrighted/trademarked characters and brands. There won't always be a workaround solution like on [[Mickey Mouse]].
Unfortunately there aren't many good FDL photographs out there.
There are heaps of US gov'T PD photos which we haven't yet put to use, and the awareness of open content is increasing thanks in large part to Wikipedia itself.
- Better search. The current one doesn't work very well. And the fact
that if you search for "Stalin" for example, takes you to the Stalin page instead of a listing of pages containing the word Stalin is annoying.
It doesn't. There is a "Search" and a "Go" button. The Go button tries to display the page you search for directly, the Search button gives you a list of results. See [[Wikipedia:Go button]] on en:.
- Some organisation. WP is very chaotic. If I was to find the article
about Stalin without using the search function it would be very hard.
Well, the people on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Six_degrees_of_Wikipedia have demonstrated that it's possible to get to almost anywhere from almost anywhere reasonably quickly. The upcoming category scheme will be of additional help.
- Maybe we could start with releasing just a segment of the wiki-web?
It is very possible that there isn't enough interest in a printed WP version. Maybe not in a CD version either and then someone has done alot of wasted work. So instead why not release "Wikipedia: Organic Chemistry" or "Wikipedia: World War II" as a litmus tet? There are thousands of articles just waiting to be written in each of those subjects.
May be a good idea in any case, as not every potential user of Wikipedia material is interested in US celebrities, porn vocabulary or Tolkien fandom.
- How would wiki-links be implemented in a text version?
Translate links to existing pages (in that edition) to underlines, hide links to non-existent pages.
Regards,
Erik
Glad that is all over -- you make an excellent straight man.
Toda. -S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller wrote:
Way to shoot down your own argument there by comparing us to a criminal proprietary software vendor ;-). I can live with something like "Wikipedia 2004" as long as whatever naming scheme is used is consistently used for each release, not changed all the time, and as long as the 2004 edition is actually released in 2004.
I agree with all of this. I think our 'code name' should be '1.0', but as we get close to release, maybe we can give it a year name instead.
Difficult to do for copyrighted/trademarked characters and brands. There won't always be a workaround solution like on [[Mickey Mouse]].
Actually, and I'm sure some legal eagles will pop in to correct me if I'm wrong, there's nothing wrong with us illustrating an article about Mickey Mouse with a picture of Mickey Mouse, if the copyright on the photo itself is clear. Trademark shouldn't interfere with encyclopedic/journalistic reporting.
If we illustrated an article about McDonald's restaurants with 3-4 photos of 'typical' McDonald's from around the world, that'd be totally fine.
--Jimbo
How about we call it "Wikipedia: The People's Encyclopedia". Or "Human Knowledge 200*?" Then on the inside cover with all the copyright info, we put the revision number, and the year that revision was made?
-- Michael Becker
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8.26 To: wikipedia-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia v. Britannica
I agree with all of this. I think our 'code name' should be '1.0', but as we get close to release, maybe we can give it a year name instead.
--Jimbo
Michael Becker wrote:
How about we call it "Wikipedia: The People's Encyclopedia".
Well, lots of people call us that. I'm a little uncomfortable with the 'communist' ring to it. Traditionally "The People's Republic" means "A system under which the people are benefitted by being told exactly what to do under penalty of law". :-) Not exactly the Wiki philosophy of openness and freedom.
On the other hand, I do sort of like it as a playful subversion of that older meaning.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Michael Becker wrote:
How about we call it "Wikipedia: The People's Encyclopedia".
Well, lots of people call us that. I'm a little uncomfortable with the 'communist' ring to it. Traditionally "The People's Republic" means "A system under which the people are benefitted by being told exactly what to do under penalty of law". :-) Not exactly the Wiki philosophy of openness and freedom.
On the other hand, I do sort of like it as a playful subversion of that older meaning.
My principal objection to using "The People's Encyclopedia" is its lack of imagination. Others have used the expression before. Using the term "people's encyclopedia" (lower case) is good publicity.
I suppose that your comments above could apply to any country that styles its legal criminal actions as "The People vs. ..."
The older meaning to be subverted was there long before "communists" usurped the word. :-)
Ec
Michael Becker wrote:
How about we call it "Wikipedia: The People's Encyclopedia". Or "Human Knowledge 200*?" Then on the inside cover with all the copyright info, we put the revision number, and the year that revision was made?
IMHO it's a little early to be concerned about the title. I can accept "1.0" as a working title so that we can refer to it as something. Nobody has seriously suggested that it would be less than a year before we could get it all together anyway. That's a lot of time for ideas to work their way through.
A lot of great books never had anything more written in them past the title. :-)
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org