I just wanted to reply to what people wrote in reply to the original "Wikipedia subset proposal" (which can be found here: http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-October/006352.html ).

I'm very glad to see Magnus, Axel, and Mav behind it.

Ruth Ifcher kindly wrote in response:

...

It is hard to form an opinion of this proposal, with just a very bare

outline of it. Nevertheless, the first question that occurred to me when I read it was, would there be someone in charge of this Wikipedia subset, like an editor-in-chief or whatever. It would seem that we need to have someone in charge of seeing that all the policy decisions get made, implemented, and documented, and to see the project through. I have a number of questions but the proposal is far from clear to me. I think more details have to be outlined, before I, for one, feel ready to ask questions. <<

As is usual for vague new proposals, there's a tension between being clear enough to let people know if they really want to be involved, and vague enough so that they might feel they can have a shape in how it's going to be formed. As far as I'm concerned, Ruth Ifcher should be one of the people listened to closely for answers to the questions that she would be apt to ask!

Would there be someone in charge of the Wikipedia subset--an editor-in-chief? Well, do we need one for *this* project and what for if so? It isn't obvious to me. The core idea as I see it is simply subject area experts (bona fide experts, mind you) pushing "approve" buttons and after that being publicly accountable for their button-pushing. For what is an editor-in-chief needed here? Perhaps only to approve reviewers, but surely if I for example were editor-in-chief, I would like to pass on this responsibility to the most senior or distinguished scholar in a given area, a "head reviewer." For example, G. B. Lane, Nupedia's music editor, can more easily tell a good musicologist from a bad one than I can.

As to implementing policy decisions and simply keeping the project on track, from experience I know that *would* require a leader--though in fact, many policy decisions have already been discussed ad nauseam on either Nupedia or Wikipedia or both, and we might as well not reinvent the wheel.

So it really isn't clear how much work leading a Wikipedia filter project would require. I know that *I* could make a full-time job of organizing it, if I could justify actually spending that time; but since I am still underemployed (but thankfully not entirely unemployed), part of the justification has to come in terms of money! Before I think any more about that, though, I'd like to see if enough people are behind it, and how Nupedia fits into it.

I can say this: if it's under a new domain name that I control, I'll be much more motivated to work on it; for reasons stated above, I have to make sure that I have *some* sort of *clear stake* in the project if I'm going to work on it the way I worked on Nupedia and Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'll be spending many hours of my free time on a project when I should, to be responsible to myself and my wife, be out making more money.

If everything goes well, if I wanted to start working on this in earnest, I would begin by joining Lee's (reported) effort to set up a Free Encyclopedia Foundation. Hopefully a steady and growing source of income might come from that, so that the overall project of creating a free encyclopedia could support the needed *professional* involvement it really requires.

But even if no money is forthcoming, I think we might be able to organize a roughly self-managing project, and I'd try to help get it started. Still, to do a good job, I really do think we need a full-time manager.

Larry