Directmedia, the company who brought us the German Wikipedia on CD and DVD, has expanded to print publishing, as can already be seen in form of "WikiPress", a topic-specific series of books.
They just announced that they will publish the German Wikipedia *in full print*, 100 volumes with 800 pages each, starting with the letter A in October 2006, to end with Z in 2010.
For this, they hired a few people. The plan is for these "editors" to go over *the stable version* of each article.
Some of you might have notices a slight problem with this - there is no stable version feature in Wikipedia. As usual, we have discussed a lot about the stable version (which is good), and AFAIK most people agreed that it won't do much harm, depending which version is presented (I'd consider that consensus, provided we still show the current version first), and then, in good tradition, did - nothing.
As I said time and again, I don't care if it's my stable version extension, or Tim Starling's, or one donated by a merciful god, but we should *use* one, on every wikipedia that wants it. And /soon/. Like now. Or next week. There's nothing left to discuss, except repeating old arguments over again.
Magnus
Magnus, couldn't some feature of the multilingua wiki or namespace manager be a possibility for this?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_MediaWiki
this allows for innerwikilinks ... so this would allow for "stable printed version" instead of "language"
Example: There is one article that is being printed and therefore is stable (let's talk about Munich) Then there is one article that is open for editing and further development
So we could have the ordinary article link: http://de.wikipedia.org/wik/EDITABLE:M%C3%BCnchen and the stable version. http://de.wikipedia.org/wik/STABLE:M%C3%BCnchen
This would also make sense for a future "new printed edition" because the stable version can than be substituted by the new and corrected and proofread and whatever version of the editable version.
The two articles would be linked through "inner-wiki-links" and if there should one day be more printed wikipedias ... well the stable articles would then be linked by ordinary interwiki links (unless we will not have a different way to link articles one day).
well I don't know if this is really feasible, but thinking logic: if it is possible with language versions .... it should be possible also with stable and editable versions.
If I did not explain well and things are not clear, please let me know.
So what are your opinions about that?
Ciao, Sabine
Magnus Manske wrote:
Directmedia, the company who brought us the German Wikipedia on CD and DVD, has expanded to print publishing, as can already be seen in form of "WikiPress", a topic-specific series of books.
They just announced that they will publish the German Wikipedia *in full print*, 100 volumes with 800 pages each, starting with the letter A in October 2006, to end with Z in 2010.
For this, they hired a few people. The plan is for these "editors" to go over *the stable version* of each article.
Some of you might have notices a slight problem with this - there is no stable version feature in Wikipedia. As usual, we have discussed a lot about the stable version (which is good), and AFAIK most people agreed that it won't do much harm, .....
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
Magnus, couldn't some feature of the multilingua wiki or namespace manager be a possibility for this?
this allows for innerwikilinks ... so this would allow for "stable printed version" instead of "language"
It would also make sense to me, especially that some articles for the printed version would need to be shortened due to the fact that printed Wikipedia *is* paper. So this namespace could contain a version tagged as "prepared for print" rather than "stable".
Magnus Manske wrote:
Directmedia, the company who brought us the German Wikipedia on CD and DVD, has expanded to print publishing, as can already be seen in form of "WikiPress", a topic-specific series of books.
They just announced that they will publish the German Wikipedia *in full print*, 100 volumes with 800 pages each, starting with the letter A in October 2006, to end with Z in 2010.
For this, they hired a few people. The plan is for these "editors" to go over *the stable version* of each article.
Some of you might have notices a slight problem with this - there is no stable version feature in Wikipedia. As usual, we have discussed a lot about the stable version (which is good), and AFAIK most people agreed that it won't do much harm, depending which version is presented (I'd consider that consensus, provided we still show the current version first), and then, in good tradition, did - nothing.
As I said time and again, I don't care if it's my stable version extension, or Tim Starling's, or one donated by a merciful god, but we should *use* one, on every wikipedia that wants it. And /soon/. Like now. Or next week. There's nothing left to discuss, except repeating old arguments over again.
Magnus
And what actually needs to be done for any version of the tool to go live Magnus ?
ant
Anthere schrieb:
And what actually needs to be done for any version of the tool to go live Magnus ?
Someone with access to Wikipedia servers would have to 1. check the tool is working OK 2. copy a few files 3. create new database table 4. edit one file
2.-4. takes, what, five minutes?
1. could have been done already...
Magnus
Anthere schrieb:
And what actually needs to be done for any version of the tool to go live Magnus ?
Someone with access to Wikipedia servers would have to 1. check the tool is working OK 2. copy a few files 3. create new database table 4. edit one file
2.-4. takes, what, five minutes?
1. could have been done already...
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
Anthere schrieb:
And what actually needs to be done for any version of the tool to go live Magnus ?
Someone with access to Wikipedia servers would have to
- check the tool is working OK
- copy a few files
- create new database table
- edit one file
2.-4. takes, what, five minutes?
- could have been done already...
I'd been waiting on Tim's in-progress code to compare. Apparently there's not really anything much of that left (his work mostly transmogrified into the templatelinks temple) so I'm poking at Magnus's code now.
It's not ready for use; on a quick lookover there are multiple PHP error messages on basic page views, odd behavior paging through history, it's scattered with test code which doesn't include any of the required permission handling, use of HTML messages may be insecure, and generally it will be hard to maintain due to heavy mixing of UI and backend code. Cache purging doesn't seem to be handled either, so it wouldn't work for its intended purpose for Wikimedia.
It'll need some work. I'll see if I can get back to this once the namespace manager is merged, rather than having to fix up its namespace handling a second time afterwards.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Anthere schrieb:
And what actually needs to be done for any version of the tool to go live Magnus ?
Someone with access to Wikipedia servers would have to
- check the tool is working OK
- copy a few files
- create new database table
- edit one file
2.-4. takes, what, five minutes?
- could have been done already...
I'd been waiting on Tim's in-progress code to compare. Apparently there's not really anything much of that left (his work mostly transmogrified into the templatelinks temple) so I'm poking at Magnus's code now.
It's not ready for use; on a quick lookover there are multiple PHP error messages on basic page views, odd behavior paging through history, it's scattered with test code which doesn't include any of the required permission handling, use of HTML messages may be insecure, and generally it will be hard to maintain due to heavy mixing of UI and backend code. Cache purging doesn't seem to be handled either, so it wouldn't work for its intended purpose for Wikimedia.
It'll need some work. I'll see if I can get back to this once the namespace manager is merged, rather than having to fix up its namespace handling a second time afterwards.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
thanks Brion :-)
ant
--- Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Some of you might have notices a slight problem with this - there is no stable version feature in Wikipedia. As usual, we have discussed a lot about the stable version (which is good), and AFAIK most people agreed that it won't do much harm, depending which version is presented (I'd consider that consensus, provided we still show the current version first), and then, in good tradition, did - nothing.
As I said time and again, I don't care if it's my stable version extension, or Tim Starling's, or one donated by a merciful god, but we should *use* one, on every wikipedia that wants it. And /soon/. Like now. Or next week. There's nothing left to discuss, except repeating old arguments over again.
I agree. Lets get on with it. The only thing we were arguing about is what version to show by default to anons. If we simply do as we do now - show the most current one - then I agree that we have a consensus. A print version is exactly the type of thing that a stable version should support. Id also like the foundation or a subsidiary to run a mirror with GoogleAds that hosted stable versions and which the current Wikipedia versions linked to (all revenue would support the foundations charitable mission and projects ; including Wikipedia). But that can wait a bit.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org