Sorry if this is a doublepost...
In article 024b01c3c4f7$0398af10$74001c12@reflection, "The Cunctator" cunctator-+4VDYf+6WHMAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
From: Chuck Smith on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:20 PM
Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household name. I am confident that in a year's time it will be a name that is as well known as or better than Britannica and Encarta.
I just want to say that I agree completely. We're in the process of branding a name here. "Wikipedia 1.0" seems perfect to me. It shows that it's stable and includes the same name. "Wikipedia 2004" could also be used if we want to publish a new stable version every year like traditional encyclopedias.
There's a number of naming issues here; the name for the frozen
version,
and the name for the project of creating that version.
In terms of naming the frozen version, I prefer Wikipedia 2004 to Wikipedia 1.0.
I agree. Wikipedia 1.0 implies that there will be a Wikipedia 1.1, which I would interpret as professing to be what Wikipedia itself is, the in-between revisions (yes, it's more than that, but I'm speaking purely in terms of published versions). Wikipedia 2004 implies that it is the 2004 *edition* (rather that release) of the Static Wikipedia (one hell of an oxymoron, mind you). The reference is to an edition of an electronic reference material, rather than to a release of a piece of software, the development process of which is, I think, not applicable to this project. I'm having a bad night for clarity.
Peter
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org