On Saturday 31 August 2002 10:54 pm, Larry wrote:
The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
I don't know about everyone else but I think that statement was a bit insulting.
So I don't propose we touch Wikipedia--but we have Nupedia. What I hope is that Nupedia can be changed and rearranged, somehow, to create an elite board of bona fide experts that is ultimately in charge of "releases" of free encyclopedia content.
Or we can simply revisit the idea of Beta/Stable; whereby some type of process validates an article. Having another level of validation through Nupedia would also be a good thing. In that way Nupedia would be a distribution of Wikipedia in the same way as Red Hat is a distribution of Linus' Linux and the GNU tools.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 10:54 pm, Larry wrote:
The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
I don't know about everyone else but I think that statement was a bit insulting.
I commented at length elsewhere.
So I don't propose we touch Wikipedia--but we have Nupedia. What I hope is that Nupedia can be changed and rearranged, somehow, to create an elite board of bona fide experts that is ultimately in charge of "releases" of free encyclopedia content.
Or we can simply revisit the idea of Beta/Stable; whereby some type of process validates an article. Having another level of validation through Nupedia would also be a good thing. In that way Nupedia would be a distribution of Wikipedia in the same way as Red Hat is a distribution of Linus' Linux and the GNU tools.
A one way pass up seems reasonable. Commercial distribution seems cool too, even if Wikipedia is not ready, Nupedia may be able to add, delete, massage appropriately.
I am leary of any "editorial boards" or "validated" material coming back from Nupedia to Wikipedia automatically. It would seem appropriate to me for all inputs to Wikipedia to be conducted manually by community members or anonymous guests in accordance with community policies if it is merging into or overwriting existing material.
I would dislike intensely any implication that Wikipedia material was/is routinely trumped and replaced by credentialism rather than normal editing and consensus building or discussion. I think it would be very detrimental to the potential quality of the content as a direct result of the reduced diversity of participation.
regards, Mike Irwin
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Or we can simply revisit the idea of Beta/Stable; whereby some type of process validates an article. Having another level of validation through Nupedia would also be a good thing. In that way Nupedia would be a distribution of Wikipedia in the same way as Red Hat is a distribution of Linus' Linux and the GNU tools.
What do you think of this: You give to the articels a classification. You can hide or exclude articels whit a specific classification in your preferences.
1. "draft" : a new articel starts whit the draft-status. After 2 months and modification by at least 3 different members the articel gets the "articel"-status automatic. This way you exclude nonsense.
2. "articel-status": a normal wikipedia articel. Free to edit by everbody.
3. "stable-status": For a articel to get the "stable-status" there must be a "vote-for-this-page". After the first vote for a articel the software create a copy of the articel whit the status "candidate-stable". This gets listed on a special page. There the "candidate-stable" articel must get a certain amount of votes in a certain time. ( 8 votes / 4 weeks ?) If it gets sufficient votes the status of that copy changes from "candidate-stable" to "stable". This stable version can not be edit. There are now 2 versions of a articel: a "stable"-status articel (static) and the articel whit the "articel-status" that you can edit. To change somting on the "stable" articel a new round of votes is nesseary.
4. "Expert Approved"-status: to go from "articel-status" to "stable-status" you only need the votes of anybody. For a articel to get the "Expert approved-status" the articel must be given approvel by a group of experts like on Nupedia. Only those mebers can change the content of the "expert-approved" articel. But besides the "expert-approved" articel ypu have still (and always will) the "articel-status" version free for everbody to edit. And possebly a "stable" version.
At the end you have almost no articels that are compleet nonsens ("draft-status") From articels whit the "stable-status" you now is has been read by different people and is probably right. From the articels whit the "Expert-approved" you now it has been under serious attension of people that know that subject very good.
I think this way you have the best of Wikipedia and Nupedia together. Every articel is still free to modify but you have also a layer of more static articels that are more trustworthy.
Giskart
"draft": a new articel gets the status of draft
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Giskart wrote:
group of experts like on Nupedia. Only those mebers can change the content of the "expert-approved" articel. But besides the
Hi. If we want to do stuff like this, we need to have branching, with an approved "1.0" tracking an open-for-edit beta version. There can be no talk of closing off articles for editing (except for vandalism protection, such as the Main Page).
-- Daniel
On 01-09-2002, Giskart wrote thusly :
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Or we can simply revisit the idea of Beta/Stable; whereby some type of process validates an article. Having another level of validation through Nupedia would also be a good thing. In that way Nupedia would be a distribution of Wikipedia in the same way as Red Hat is a distribution of Linus' Linux and the GNU tools.
What do you think of this: You give to the articels a classification. You can hide or exclude articels whit a specific classification in your preferences.
[classification snip]
Giskart
Some thoughts. 1. there's a potentially dangerous situation that : a) we will never have enough experts b) experts will go into lengthy disputes that will cause their number to become 0 2. there should/could be another phase - a "scientifically valid" article - properly _referenced_ and reflecting state-of-the-art in a given field 3. High brow and low brow - there's a huge gap between what is scientifically valid and what is comprehensible to lay public
All in all, I have doubts that this plan will work. I think Wikipedia would be better off with enthusiasts than with experts. Have we learnt anything from the Nupedia vs Wikipedia lesson ?
Regards, kpjas
Giskart wrote:
- "draft" : a new articel starts whit the draft-status. After 2
months and modification by at least 3 different members the articel gets the "articel"-status automatic. This way you exclude nonsense.
- "articel-status": a normal wikipedia articel. Free to edit by
everbody.
- "stable-status": For a articel to get the "stable-status" there
must be a "vote-for-this-page". After the first vote for a articel the software create a copy of the articel whit the status "candidate-stable". This gets listed on a special page. . This stable version can not be edit.
- "Expert Approved"-status: approvel by a group of experts like on
Nupedia. Only those members can change the content of the "expert-approved" articel.
That does not have my vote. There is some sense to the first two levels, if only to bring to everybody's attention that an article is new. Beyond that, multiple versions with different edit right seems more chaotic than what we have now. And what is the general public to make of this, when they only visit to read about a subject but find multiple versions on the subject?
Eclecticology
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org