On WikiEN-L:
I wrote:
Do we still need to be so oriented toward editing when we already have well over 4,000 edits a day and nearly 200,000 articles? A slow-down in editing and increased emphasis on getting things in stable form should become more of a priority. IMO, the best way to market that - both internally and externally
- is by using nupedia.org to host the stable content.
Tarquin responded:
I agree with everything mav said here. I just *HATE* the name Nupedia. It's the "nu" for "new", and also the fact that "new" won't really mean much in, say, 20 years' time.
Suggestions....? I like name 'Nupedia' because; 1) it is a brand we already own 2) we already control the .com and .org 3) while not as famous as the name 'Wikipedia', it still is known of by many people (over 40,000 hits on Google) 4) it is easy to pronounce 5) the 'nu/new' connection relates to the underlying concept (free content created by a worldwide community of voluntary authors), not its age (thus it will take the 'newness' a few hundred years to wear off - assuming that the free content movement really takes hold).
However, what about the other Wikimedia projects? Should we try to buy-up other 'nu' domains? At first I thought it would be a great idea to have a Wikimedia-owned publishing house called "Numedia" but alas that fine name is taken http://numedia.com/ (the .org is owned by somebody else). But 'Nubooks' would work (.org and .com available)... NumediaPublishing.org/com is available but that name is too long.
Other problems: *Nusource.com taken http://Nusource.com/ (.org available, however) *Nuquote.com taken by a cybersquatter (.org available, however) *Nutionary - NOOOO!!! Don't even think of it! Terrible, terrible name. *Nudictionary.org/.com available but the name is just too long and too bland, IMO.
We do own Gnupedia.org/.com but as somebody else already mentioned that that title would indicate a stronger connection to the GNU Project than actually exists and may in fact infringe on their trademark.
But I really don't think 'wiki' should be in the title of any Wikimedia content that is published in non-editable form (that would include any static website it is hosted on and any hardcopy such as books or a '1.0' version of Wikipedia).
If you can't edit it, it ain't wiki!
So even though 'nu' can't be expanded to cover static versions of all Wikimedia content, I think we should still use the 'Nupedia' name for a static version of Wikipedia content unless a better scheme is hatched.
Better suggestions, of course, most welcome (especially if it is a single name that could cover /all/ Wikimedia static content). Such a name could be used by a Wikimedia publishing house - it in turn would publish Wikimedia-derived encyclopedias, books, dictionaries and source texts after that content went through some sort of approval process.
Just some thoughts of mine. Please add yours.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I don't have anything against the name Nupedia in and of itself, but I wouldn't recommend diluting name recognition. It won't particuarly bother me if that's the name used, I just recommend against it.
-- Jake
From: Daniel Mayer on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:46 PM
But I really don't think 'wiki' should be in the title of any
Wikimedia
content that is published in non-editable form (that would include any static website it is hosted on and any hardcopy such as books or a '1.0'
version
of Wikipedia).
If you can't edit it, it ain't wiki!
I think this is absolutely right, and is probably why I subconsciously have been disliking the name "Wikipedia" for a hardcopy version.
I personally think Nupedia is a good name for it, but if people can come up with a better idea, then that would be great too.
--tc
----- Original Message ----- From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@kband.com
I think this is absolutely right, and is probably why I subconsciously have been disliking the name "Wikipedia" for a hardcopy version.
I personally think Nupedia is a good name for it, but if people can come up with a better idea, then that would be great too.
Nupedia sound and look a little bit weird in French and maybe also in German. I would personally prefer a longer impressive latin sounding name (a little bit like "Encyclopaediae Universalis") to be on the jacket, and Nupedia could be the nickmane used day-to-day. Something like "Open Collaborative Hyperlinked Encyclopaedia" but, at best, N and U could be acronyms. ("Networked Universal Encyclopaedia" ?) (My two centimes)
Post-Scriptum: In fact, I don't even know if the hardcopy version is to be multi language. I apologise if my proposal is off the road.
Ruimu a écrit:
Post-Scriptum: In fact, I don't even know if the hardcopy version is to be multi language. I apologise if my proposal is off the road.
the first version will be in english only. But it will be given a name
and since a name is not changed once used...we will keep the name for the next versions
and the non english will just have to say amen
better to decide this all together before the first version ever
Ruimu wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@kband.com
I think this is absolutely right, and is probably why I subconsciously have been disliking the name "Wikipedia" for a hardcopy version.
I personally think Nupedia is a good name for it, but if people can come up with a better idea, then that would be great too.
Nupedia sound and look a little bit weird in French and maybe also inGerman. I would personally prefer a longer impressive latin sounding name (a little bit like "Encyclopaediae Universalis") to be on the jacket, and Nupedia could be the nickmane used day-to-day. Something like "Open Collaborative Hyperlinked Encyclopaedia" but, at best, N and U could be acronyms. ("Networked Universal Encyclopaedia" ?) (My two centimes)
Post-Scriptum: In fact, I don't even know if the hardcopy version is to be multi language. I apologise if my proposal is off the road.
I like very much the name "Encyclopedia Galactica".
It is like the objectieve of Wikipedia "a collaborative project to produce a free and complete encyclopedia in every language" , a very bold name.
Walter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Vermeir" walter@wikipedia.be
I like very much the name "Encyclopedia Galactica".
It is like the objectieve of Wikipedia "a collaborative project to produce a free and complete encyclopedia in every language" , a very bold name.
Yeah, and being bold is exactly what people told me when I came in wp.
"Nupedia" feels a little bit like a name for English-speaking geeks and I wish the project could gather more and more wikipedians from any other horizons, not only computer adicted geeks like me, that why I would prefer an elegant self explaining name (or subtitle). Wikipedia 0.1 is going outside in the world for the first time and should not forget its dinner jacket!
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
Suggestions....? I like name 'Nupedia' because;
- it is a brand we already own
true
- we already control the .com and .org
true
- while not as famous as the name 'Wikipedia', it still is known of by many
people (over 40,000 hits on Google)
true
- it is easy to pronounce
hummm...true
- the 'nu/new' connection relates to the underlying concept (free content
created by a worldwide community of voluntary authors), not its age (thus it will take the 'newness' a few hundred years to wear off - assuming that the free content movement really takes hold).
hummm....nupedia has nothing to do with "newness" but with "nakedness".
Let me think...living nake...is a sort of freedom...the freedom of not following social norms, of being body free, caressed by soft wind, perhaps free like a dolphin (or an orca ?) to play in the ocean ?
What does that means to me otherwise ?
Yes, the freedom of walking barefoot, without the fear of being cut by a broken coca cola can.
However, what about the other Wikimedia projects? Should we try to buy-up other 'nu' domains? At first I thought it would be a great idea to have a Wikimedia-owned publishing house called "Numedia" but alas that fine name is taken http://numedia.com/ (the .org is owned by somebody else). But 'Nubooks' would work (.org and .com available)... NumediaPublishing.org/com is available but that name is too long.
Nakesource Nakedquote Naketionary .... hummmm....why not.
....
NuPied !!!!! Great name for a new project ?
Eclecticology, what do you think ?
Anthere wrote:
Daniel Mayer a rit:
- it is easy to pronounce
hummm...true
Not necessarily. Is it /noo-/ or /nyoo-/, not to mention /nü-/ which is a problem for English speakers.
- the 'nu/new' connection relates to the underlying concept (free
content created by a worldwide community of voluntary authors), not its age (thus it will take the 'newness' a few hundred years to wear off - assuming that the free content movement really takes hold).
hummm....nupedia has nothing to do with "newness" but with "nakedness".
In the present age things don't stay new as long as they used to centuries ago. MS-DOS is for dinosaurs, and it hasn't been around for a few hundred years. The reference to nakedness is a natural French reaction that won't be obvious to unilingual English speakers -- it's an encyclopedia that brings us the naked truth. :-)
I believe that its origins have more to do with the animal, the gnu, and free documentation licenses.
Let me think...living nake...is a sort of freedom...the freedom of not following social norms, of being body free, caressed by soft wind, perhaps free like a dolphin (or an orca ?) to play in the ocean ?
What does that means to me otherwise ?
Yes, the freedom of walking barefoot, without the fear of being cut by a broken coca cola can.
It makes me think of the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy". :-)
However, what about the other Wikimedia projects? Should we try to buy-up other 'nu' domains? At first I thought it would be a great idea to have a Wikimedia-owned publishing house called "Numedia" but alas that fine name is taken http://numedia.com/ (the .org is owned by somebody else). But 'Nubooks' would work (.org and .com available)... NumediaPublishing.org/com is available but that name is too long.
Nakesource Nakedquote Naketionary .... hummmm....why not.....
NuPied !!!!! Great name for a new project ?
Eclecticology, what do you think ?
I must say that I don't have strong opinions on the name. As an inclusionist, I'm more likely to be involved in the old Wikipedia than in the new 1.0 project. There's always wikinu.org and if we want to look at other top level domains how about wiki.nu if it weren't already taken?
Ec
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Daniel Mayer a rit:
- it is easy to pronounce
hummm...true
Not necessarily. Is it /noo-/ or /nyoo-/, not to mention /nü-/ which is a problem for English speakers.
Ah, but people will pronounced it differently depending on their language. English perhaps noo ou nyoo, french nü.
Btw, I pronounced wikipedia : vikipedia, not ouikipedia.
Do not ask me why :-) It is totally illogical
- the 'nu/new' connection relates to the underlying concept (free
content created by a worldwide community of voluntary authors), not its age (thus it will take the 'newness' a few hundred years to wear off - assuming that the free content movement really takes hold).
hummm....nupedia has nothing to do with "newness" but with "nakedness".
In the present age things don't stay new as long as they used to centuries ago. MS-DOS is for dinosaurs, and it hasn't been around for a few hundred years. The reference to nakedness is a natural French reaction that won't be obvious to unilingual English speakers -- it's an encyclopedia that brings us the naked truth. :-)
I believe that its origins have more to do with the animal, the gnu, and free documentation licenses.
Yes, probably.
But, think of the slogan
Nupédia, la vérité nue !
Marchez vers la vérité, avec Nupédia !
Nupédia, les allées de la connaissance
Let me think...living nake...is a sort of freedom...the freedom of not following social norms, of being body free, caressed by soft wind, perhaps free like a dolphin (or an orca ?) to play in the ocean ?
What does that means to me otherwise ?
Yes, the freedom of walking barefoot, without the fear of being cut by a broken coca cola can.
It makes me think of the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy". :-)
Don't know that title
Suspicious tone : is it again a Monty Python movie ?
However, what about the other Wikimedia projects? Should we try to buy-up other 'nu' domains? At first I thought it would be a great idea to have a Wikimedia-owned publishing house called "Numedia" but alas that fine name is taken http://numedia.com/ (the .org is owned by somebody else). But 'Nubooks' would work (.org and .com available)... NumediaPublishing.org/com is available but that name is too long.
Nakesource Nakedquote Naketionary .... hummmm....why not.....
NuPied !!!!! Great name for a new project ?
Eclecticology, what do you think ?
I must say that I don't have strong opinions on the name. As an inclusionist, I'm more likely to be involved in the old Wikipedia than in the new 1.0 project. There's always wikinu.org and if we want to look at other top level domains how about wiki.nu if it weren't already taken?
E c
I do not have strong objections about the name either, I just wonder how french people "hear" it, and whether they could find it utterly ridiculous or not. If that sounds ridiculous, we will not published the french version under that name I suppose. Or we will have double work to sound serious. Depends...
Either cases, there are so many holes yet to fill in what interest me, that I belong to the raw construction more than to the finition team :-)
This said, it is a bit bothering to hear inclusionist -> wiki work in progress deletionist -> wiki stable
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi Anthere and all,
Le Wednesday 17 December 2003 20:47, Anthere a écrit :
It makes me think of the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy". :-)
Don't know that title
Suspicious tone : is it again a Monty Python movie ?
No. In French, the title is "Les dieux sont tombés sur la tête".
Yann
- -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Daniel Mayer a rit:
- it is easy to pronounce
hummm...true
Not necessarily. Is it /noo-/ or /nyoo-/, not to mention /nü-/ which is a problem for English speakers.
As for nupedia being something "new", well, I think Newyorkan (and area) accent pronounces new as /noo/ [SAMPA n u: ]
I believe that its origins have more to do with the animal, the gnu, and free documentation licenses.
And we support some TeX markup, so might it also be a nice ad for Donald Knuth? [d A n @ l d k n u: T] :D
Daniel Mayer wrote:
But I really don't think 'wiki' should be in the title of any Wikimedia content that is published in non-editable form (that would include any static website it is hosted on and any hardcopy such as books or a '1.0' version of Wikipedia).
If you can't edit it, it ain't wiki!
Agreed. It's less snappy that "nupedia" but I'd suggest something like "The Open Content Encyclopedia" or "The Wikimedia Foundation Encyclopedia". It's fine to use the Wikimedia name even if it's non-editable, since it's made by the foundation. That neatly soves the problem of name dilution too.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org