Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household name. I am confident that in a year's time it will be a name that is as well known as or better than Britannica and Encarta.
I just want to say that I agree completely. We're in the process of branding a name here. "Wikipedia 1.0" seems perfect to me. It shows that it's stable and includes the same name. "Wikipedia 2004" could also be used if we want to publish a new stable version every year like traditional encyclopedias.
Chuck
===== We are the Esperanto speakers who say "Ni!" http://www.esperantomobilo.org/
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias. Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
From: Chuck Smith on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:20 PM
Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household name. I am confident that in a year's time it will be a name that is as well known as or better than Britannica and Encarta.
I just want to say that I agree completely. We're in the process of branding a name here. "Wikipedia 1.0" seems perfect to me. It shows that it's stable and includes the same name. "Wikipedia 2004" could also be used if we want to publish a new stable version every year like traditional encyclopedias.
There's a number of naming issues here; the name for the frozen version, and the name for the project of creating that version.
In terms of naming the frozen version, I prefer Wikipedia 2004 to Wikipedia 1.0.
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 pro's and con's, obviously.
--Jimbo
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".
Jimmy Wales wrote:
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. :-)
If it's ready early there's a precedent with the auto manufacturers who trot out next year's models in August. :-)
Ec
Chuck Smith wrote:
Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household name. I am confident that in a year's time it will be a name that is as well known as or better than Britannica and Encarta.
I just want to say that I agree completely. We're in the process of branding a name here. "Wikipedia 1.0" seems perfect to me. It shows that it's stable and includes the same name. "Wikipedia 2004" could also be used if we want to publish a new stable version every year like traditional encyclopedias.
In the Linux world, distributors have a brand name that they glue on in addition to a version number, so "Red Hat Linux 8.0" is the actual product you can get, and there's no "Linux 8.0" unless it's a far-future kernel. :-)
So, ideas: "Wikipedia Pro 1.0" "Wikipedia Stable 2004" "Wikipedia Plus 1.0" "Best of Wikipedia 1.0" (BOW, but suggests "bow wow") "Wikipedia Select 2004" "Wikipedia Snapshot" or "Wikipedia Snap" "Bomis Wikipedia 1.0" :-)
For specialized products, longer names are good too: "Wikipedia Encyclopedia of Ships and the Sea" "Wikipedia's Math-o-Rama" "Wikipedia Games Compleat 2004" "The Wikipedia Tree of Life: a comprehensive encyclopedia of plants, animals, and protista"
Stan
From: Stan Shebs on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:44 PM So, ideas: "Wikipedia Pro 1.0" "Wikipedia Stable 2004" "Wikipedia Plus 1.0" "Best of Wikipedia 1.0" (BOW, but suggests "bow wow") "Wikipedia Select 2004" "Wikipedia Snapshot" or "Wikipedia Snap" "Bomis Wikipedia 1.0" :-)
Or "Crippled, Frozen Wikipedia Suitable for Dead-Tree Distribution" if you want to be more honest about it....
Put a frock on a pig, and it's still a pig.
:)
"TC" == The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
TC> Or "Crippled, Frozen Wikipedia Suitable for Dead-Tree TC> Distribution" if you want to be more honest about it....
I'd call Wikipedia "crippled" if it was only usable in a particular medium (say, for example, wiki).
~ESP
Stan Shebs wrote:
For specialized products, longer names are good too: "Wikipedia Encyclopedia of Ships and the Sea" "Wikipedia's Math-o-Rama" "Wikipedia Games Compleat 2004" "The Wikipedia Tree of Life: a comprehensive encyclopedia of plants, animals, and protista"
"The Wikipedia list of bot-generated U.S. towns" :-)
Stan Shebs wrote:
Chuck Smith wrote:
Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household name. I am confident that in a year's time it will be a name that is as well known as or better than Britannica and Encarta.
I just want to say that I agree completely. We're in the process of branding a name here. "Wikipedia 1.0" seems perfect to me. It shows that it's stable and includes the same name. "Wikipedia 2004" could also be used if we want to publish a new stable version every year like traditional encyclopedias.
So, ideas: "Wikipedia Pro 1.0" "Wikipedia Stable 2004" "Wikipedia Plus 1.0" "Best of Wikipedia 1.0" (BOW, but suggests "bow wow") "Wikipedia Select 2004" "Wikipedia Snapshot" or "Wikipedia Snap" "Bomis Wikipedia 1.0" :-)
I find myself coming around to the idea that "Wikipedia" needs to be part of the name. I agree that it would no longer be a wiki and just having the year in the title itself gives the impression that it is a snapshot. Thus any additional words will be reduncancies of some sort. Short titles are more attractive to the public..
There's a risk in trying to put too much into the first edition. I support the idea of relatively short production runs that can be easily sold out. The first edition especially is bound to have a lot of bugs and errors.. I even have doubts about whether a credible print copy can be produced in 2004. Once the first edition is ready, it should be easy to produce CD versions quarterly.
For specialized products, longer names are good too: "Wikipedia Encyclopedia of Ships and the Sea" "Wikipedia's Math-o-Rama" "Wikipedia Games Compleat 2004" "The Wikipedia Tree of Life: a comprehensive encyclopedia of plants, animals, and protista"
How about Wikimedia's own stamp catalog, with a numbering system that can compete with Scotts' overprotected proprietary one. Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org