Jimbo wrote:
"Wiki is not paper, but Wikipedia 1.0 is paper". The goal of a push towards 1.0 is specifically to produce a version that's purposefully edited and limited in some minor ways.
Whoa! Waitaminute. Does that mean that all the element articles I've written have to be cut down in size? Most are two to five times longer than any Encarta, Britannica or Comptoms article on the same elements.
The process should unite and energize the existing Wikipedia community, not compete with it. Example: this should not happen on a different website by new volunteers, but by us, we've earned it.
If that is the case then can we finally accept a bit of reality and admit that Nupedia is a dead project that has been superceded by Wikipedia? We can then focus on picking the carcass of Nupedia clean and forward that domain name to Wikipedia. I tried to express an idea about how to revive Nupedia by making it a stable distribution of Wikipedia, but there was little support for it (and in fact some initial hostility). IMO, that was Nupedia's only hope.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Whoa! Waitaminute. Does that mean that all the element articles I've written have to be cut down in size? Most are two to five times longer than any Encarta, Britannica or Comptoms article on the same elements.
No, those are sweet. I just reviewed: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium for example. Sweet.
I say that we absolutely need to keep all the content where we really shine -- our ultimate goal is to be better than Britannica, to be the finest encylopedia in history. We won't get there by leaving out our best stuff.
But in a print version, maybe this article wouldn't be included: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Plutonium
Because as entertaining as it is, I'm not sure it would pass the test of universal interest that we might need to employ.
But I don't want any of us to prejudge right now just how we might proceed towards 1.0, nor about the details of what it'd look like, other than "roughly as good as Britannica".
If that is the case then can we finally accept a bit of reality and admit that Nupedia is a dead project that has been superceded by Wikipedia? We can then focus on picking the carcass of Nupedia clean and forward that domain name to Wikipedia. I tried to express an idea about how to revive Nupedia by making it a stable distribution of Wikipedia, but there was little support for it (and in fact some initial hostility). IMO, that was Nupedia's only hope.
Well, I'm with you on all of this. I have always liked the Nupedia name better, and wish that I had just opened a wiki on Nupedia a long long time ago, and left it at that. On the other hand, a clean break with the past avoided a *lot* of internal political wrangling.
(And as is well known, we never have any internal political wrangling now, ha ha!)
But now, Wikipedia is the bomb. The name is well known, unique, and perhaps a little less 'dot-com' and more 'organic' if you see what I mean.
One thing I never want is for Wikipedia proper, the site that we all know and love, be 'ghettoized' by a 1.0/"Sifter".
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
But in a print version, maybe this article wouldn't be included: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Plutonium
Agreed. So long as the decision of what to print and what to avoid is never political (e.g. "Controversies about Jehovah's Witnesses are of limited interest -- they don't need to be put in the print version"), I have no problem with it. But all the fictional character stuff, for example, could be seriously trimmed for the printed edition.
Well, I'm with you on all of this. I have always liked the Nupedia name better
I always found "Nupedia" kind of vacuous, and people would probably constantly misspell it as "Newpedia". One thing I really like about Wiki[mp]edia is that it raises awareness of what wikis are and what they can be used for. In many articles about Wikipedia, people have noted that "Wikipedia is the largest wiki, but not the only one" and mentioned other wiki sites like TolkienWiki. Wikipedia has greatly contributed to the use of wikis as a technology. If Nupedia had used the wiki concept, some people might have successfully lobbied for not using the term wiki at all, because it is slightly obscure, eliminating this positive effect.
In a few years, everyone who knows Google will hopefully also have an idea what a wiki is. This would never be possible if we wouldn't openly promote the fact that we *are* a wiki. Also of note, many aspects of wiki philosophy have rubbed off on us, generally positively, and we are a recognized part of the wiki community.
I think the name Wikipedia resonates very well with our mission. It is fresh and different -- not just another encyclopedia -- while not being impossible to spell or pronounce (like "Kuro5hin"). I love the facial expressions it creates when people hear it for the first time. The immediate response I always received was curiosity.
Now the name Wiktionary, that's another story...
Regards,
Erik
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org