You can regard this as a follow up to http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-September/thread.html#star... "Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement."
I want to make a proposal to make a new website that contains just a subset of Wikipedia articles. Please, if you want to comment on this proposal, read it twice or three times; I have the strange effect on people of seeming to say one thing when really, I said the exact opposite, or something quite different, anyway.
Wikipedia is open content, so strictly speaking, I don't have to ask anybody's permission to do this, and in fact (see below), I think the new website should be entirely independent of Wikipedia. But I *do* *really* want the approval of this community. I want you, or many of you, behind the idea. I want to start us all out on the right foot here.
------
In view of the facts that Wikipedia has grown tremendously; that we have lost several of our most overeducated, overqualified participants due to disgust with having to deal with a few difficult, uncooperative participants; and above all, that there is a vast body of *hundreds* of highly educated and willing free encyclopedia participants waiting idle due to the dormancy of Nupedia; I propose the following:
(1) We--whether Bomis or someone else--should set up another website. It should definitely not live at the Wikipedia.com domain.
(2) The purpose of the new website will be to *select* and *post* Wikipedia articles that are up to a certain standard.
(3) The only participants in the new website will be those that meet the Nupedia requirements in their particular fields, or some other similarly stringent requirements.
(4) Either I, or a small group of trusted people, will be responsible for approving participants.
(5) The website will be *read only*. No one will be able to edit it directly, including its participants. This means it *won't* be a wiki.
(6) Any participant will have to go to Wikipedia to make any edits to an article.
(7) Participants will save *particular versions* of articles, not the current article, whatever it happens to be. There should be a link to "the most current version" of a given article on Wikipedia, as well.
(8) Implementing the website should not require *any* changes to Wikipedia. I want to leave Wikipedia alone completely. The only thing that *might* make sense is to add a link (which should be optional!) to a corresponding "subset" website article, if it exists. In particular, "subset" participants should **not** be regarded as Wikipedia editors with any particular, special status on Wikipedia. And "subset" policy, whatever it might turn out to be, should **not** be regarded as Wikipedia policy.
(9) Also, I don't think we should host this website on Nupedia.com. Too many Nupedians will want to have nothing to do with it.
Caveats:
I realize that I and others have made similar sorts of suggestions in the past. That's great. Now let's do something.
The above is just a proposal. I might be persuaded to get behind something quite different.
Another leading approval process idea, one that I have supported in the past, is the idea that *anyone* could approve *any* articles, and then users could make list of "approved approvers," i.e., people whose opinions on articles they trust. I still think that's an intriguing idea, but I also don't think it's one that will attract the many Nupedia participants who want to be working on a free encyclopedia project. Elitism leaves a bad taste in my mouth as it does for many, but we *need* a *going* project that will attract some of the most educated, knowledgable, intelligent, clearest-thinking people to the overall task of building a free encyclopedia. The point is obviously *not* to *be* elitist; it is to make a project that participants can see there are adequate safeguards that their time will not be wasted by any yahoo who can just come along and ruin their work.
There's nothing to stop us from implementing *both* proposals, by the way. (Someone made this point before, too, I remember.)
But I intend to get behind the proposal articulated in (1)-(7) above. And I'd like to get any interested programmers behind it ASAP, and I'll be only too happy to collaborate on some of the basic policy and mission statements of the website.
Then we can get Julie and Michael back, perhaps, and put to work people like G. B. Lane, Gaytha Langlois, Michael Witbrock, Munawar Anees, Ruth Ifcher (of course!), and all the other smart and wonderful people I worked with on Nupedia. Maybe this will be a way to get Nupedia itself kick-started again.
--Larry
<snip proposal> That's what we wanted to do anyway, at least part of it. IMHO a patched Phase III software would be exactly what you need: * Replace the "add me as a user" with an "add-a-user" function for sysops * Enable all logged-in users to edit a page *once*, then have it protected automatically so it can't be changed * Disable all not-logged-in edits * Set up an automatic "language link" to the wikipedia article with the same name ([[w:xyz]] on [[xyz]] at "Larrypedia")
That could be done in a day, by Lee, Brion, or myself . You'll just have to find a server ;-)
Magnus
I like this proposal a lot. It marries the free-wheeling nature of Wikipedia with a peer review process, and makes sure that the benefits of peer review flow back into Wikipedia.
The people selecting Wikipedia articles for publication on the peer reviewed version should be called "reviewers" rather than editors and should get a link to a page where they can describe their qualifications.
We certainly need a better name than "Wikipedia subset". I propose something involving "Peer review", a very positively charged term. How about "Free Peer-Reviewed Encyclopedia" or "Peer-Reviewed Wikipedia". Not overly creative, but descriptive and clear.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Axel Boldt wrote:
We certainly need a better name than "Wikipedia subset". I propose something involving "Peer review", a very positively charged term. How about "Free Peer-Reviewed Encyclopedia" or "Peer-Reviewed Wikipedia". Not overly creative, but descriptive and clear.
Wikipeerdia?
(runs and hides)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Well, why not? It sounds good. But I'm confused: why make the proposal here? Most of us will have nothing to do with the project, simply because we're not qualified.
Do you just want to know how we feel about using Wikipedia articles in such a project? If so, I like it. Go for it. Good luck.
Stephen G.
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
You can regard this as a follow up to
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-September/thread.html#star...
"Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement."
I want to make a proposal to make a new website that contains just a subset of Wikipedia articles. Please, if you want to comment on this proposal, read it twice or three times; I have the strange effect on people of seeming to say one thing when really, I said the exact opposite, or something quite different, anyway.
Wikipedia is open content, so strictly speaking, I don't have to ask anybody's permission to do this, and in fact (see below), I think the new website should be entirely independent of Wikipedia. But I *do* *really* want the approval of this community. I want you, or many of you, behind the idea. I want to start us all out on the right foot here.
In view of the facts that Wikipedia has grown tremendously; that we have lost several of our most overeducated, overqualified participants due to disgust with having to deal with a few difficult, uncooperative participants; and above all, that there is a vast body of *hundreds* of highly educated and willing free encyclopedia participants waiting idle due to the dormancy of Nupedia; I propose the following:
(1) We--whether Bomis or someone else--should set up another website. It should definitely not live at the Wikipedia.com domain.
(2) The purpose of the new website will be to *select* and *post* Wikipedia articles that are up to a certain standard.
(3) The only participants in the new website will be those that meet the Nupedia requirements in their particular fields, or some other similarly stringent requirements.
(4) Either I, or a small group of trusted people, will be responsible for approving participants.
(5) The website will be *read only*. No one will be able to edit it directly, including its participants. This means it *won't* be a wiki.
(6) Any participant will have to go to Wikipedia to make any edits to an article.
(7) Participants will save *particular versions* of articles, not the current article, whatever it happens to be. There should be a link to "the most current version" of a given article on Wikipedia, as well.
(8) Implementing the website should not require *any* changes to Wikipedia. I want to leave Wikipedia alone completely. The only thing that *might* make sense is to add a link (which should be optional!) to a corresponding "subset" website article, if it exists. In particular, "subset" participants should **not** be regarded as Wikipedia editors with any particular, special status on Wikipedia. And "subset" policy, whatever it might turn out to be, should **not** be regarded as Wikipedia policy.
(9) Also, I don't think we should host this website on Nupedia.com. Too many Nupedians will want to have nothing to do with it.
Caveats:
I realize that I and others have made similar sorts of suggestions in the past. That's great. Now let's do something.
The above is just a proposal. I might be persuaded to get behind something quite different.
Another leading approval process idea, one that I have supported in the past, is the idea that *anyone* could approve *any* articles, and then users could make list of "approved approvers," i.e., people whose opinions on articles they trust. I still think that's an intriguing idea, but I also don't think it's one that will attract the many Nupedia participants who want to be working on a free encyclopedia project. Elitism leaves a bad taste in my mouth as it does for many, but we *need* a *going* project that will attract some of the most educated, knowledgable, intelligent, clearest-thinking people to the overall task of building a free encyclopedia. The point is obviously *not* to *be* elitist; it is to make a project that participants can see there are adequate safeguards that their time will not be wasted by any yahoo who can just come along and ruin their work.
There's nothing to stop us from implementing *both* proposals, by the way. (Someone made this point before, too, I remember.)
But I intend to get behind the proposal articulated in (1)-(7) above. And I'd like to get any interested programmers behind it ASAP, and I'll be only too happy to collaborate on some of the basic policy and mission statements of the website.
Then we can get Julie and Michael back, perhaps, and put to work people like G. B. Lane, Gaytha Langlois, Michael Witbrock, Munawar Anees, Ruth Ifcher (of course!), and all the other smart and wonderful people I worked with on Nupedia. Maybe this will be a way to get Nupedia itself kick-started again.
--Larry
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Larry Sanger wrote in small part:
we have lost several of our most overeducated, overqualified participants due to disgust with having to deal with a few difficult, uncooperative participants;
Who besides Michael Tinkler and Julie Kemp? Two is not several.
Since I've responded to this brief comment, it's only fair to respond to the main point too: While I doubt that I would become involved, I'm happy to bless your potential project.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org