Erik wrote:
I know, but what's the point? Why not just kill off Nupedia and advertise Wikipedia as a single project?
The point is that a main criticism I always here about Wikipedia is that it is largely not written by people trained in the areas they are writting. But that is the whole point of Nupedia. Therefore we take the best of Wikipedia and put it through the expert approval process and the result is something that can't be criticized for that reason. Also having a different name makes it clear that those articles are different than regular Wikipedia ones (a "stable" Wikipedia article is an oxymoron anyway).
If Wikipedia is not simple enough, not easy enough to use for the kind of experts who can help in certification, then it seems we should make it simple enough -- perhaps by having a special skin for the purpose. See, my main concern is about having separate communities.
We already have the experts - let's use them in Nupedia, revive the Nupedia brand as a stable, experted-approved distribution of Wikipedia and that will attract even more experts. All editing will still be on Wikipedia so every Nupedian is also a Wikipedian. I see this as setting-up great synergies between the two projects.
I feel that getting the experts hooked on Wikipedia might be way cooler.
See above.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com writes:
Also having a different name makes it clear that those articles are different than regular Wikipedia ones (a "stable" Wikipedia article is an oxymoron anyway).
I will start citing articles with oldid as follows:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Trier&oldid=218799
We already have the experts - let's use them in Nupedia, revive the Nupedia brand as a stable, experted-approved distribution of Wikipedia and that will attract even more experts. All editing will still be on Wikipedia so every Nupedian is also a Wikipedian. I see this as setting-up great synergies between the two projects.
Sounds good to me (and I don't understand why we must discuss it at all); nobody can prevent you from using article within a different context as long as you respect the license.
KArl Eichwalder claimed: Sounds good to me (and I don't understand why we must discuss it
at all); nobody can prevent you from using article within a different context as long as you respect the license.
HA! This on the discussion list for the source itself -- not merely some other site community planning on palming wiki bits.
Karls notion of "do it and ask quesions later" -- aside from all other reasons --- is suspect for the simple problem of contradicting the role of the Wikipedia shepherd -- (which all are here who deal with the workings of WP.) There are good shepherds, bad ones, and ugly ones -- I would suggest that a good shepherd is one who see it as their duty to keep all things as open as possible -- to alllow and invite as many intelligent people into the fold as are interested.
They would also **refrain from taking it upon themselves, based on their powers (knowledge, connections) to usurp or undermine the ability of people to participate fully (with full knowledge of that in which they participate.)
Bless ye flock. -S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel-
Erik wrote:
I know, but what's the point? Why not just kill off Nupedia and advertise Wikipedia as a single project?
The point is that a main criticism I always here about Wikipedia is that it is largely not written by people trained in the areas they are writting.
They should not care whether it is *written* by people who are trained in the respective areas, they should care whether it has been fact-checked by those people. And this can be best accomplished within Wikipedia, especially since we already have many of those people.
Also having a different name makes it clear that those articles are different than regular Wikipedia ones (a "stable" Wikipedia article is an oxymoron anyway).
Having a prominent, clearly labeled, protected section within Wikipedia should be sufficient. Linking to a specific revision of an article is equivalent to a "stable" Nupedia page. (We might make a minor change that links to specific revisions which contain the parameter "&stable=true" are shown as protected pages even if they aren't, so that users don't accidentally edit old revisions. Alternatively, clicking the "Edit" link would automatically load the newest revision in these cases.)
We already have the experts - let's use them in Nupedia, revive the Nupedia brand as a stable, experted-approved distribution of Wikipedia and that will attract even more experts. All editing will still be on Wikipedia so every Nupedian is also a Wikipedian. I see this as setting-up great synergies between the two projects.
I think there's an ancient Egyptian curse on the Nupedia name that prevents any project running under that banner from succeeding. That, and I still don't see the point of doing on Nupedia what can be done within Wikipedia. :-)
Regards,
Erik
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org