Catching up on my e-mail, I've read a lot of comments and discussion on the various proposals. Rathe than trying to fit into dying threads, etc. I'm going to toss ib my six cents worth (3 comments) in this one message.
1. We do need a sifter project and a stable base. As more outside references (google, web sites, etc.) point to Wikipedia, I'd like the casual reader/browser to find a worthwhile product.
2. I'd like to see the electronic version kept under the Wikipedia brand. I understand the desire to see Wiki as Wiki friendly, with open edits, etc., etc. and the desire for a stable base. However, bear in mind that serarch engines and reviewers look to site hits and visit totals. I'd prefer something like -- http:/en0100.wikipeda.org/wiki/Article.htm -- rather than to dilute us through multiple domains.
3. The BP process seems OK, adding some controls to limit access and movement (syssop status?) to the en0100 (version 1.00) protected pages. Technically, the en000 page doesn't need to be a database entry, just a reference to the time stamped page.
Thanks for a lively discussion, I will now resume lurk mode.
Regards, LouI
_______________________________________________ Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails! Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web.
Limholt wrote: 1. We do need a sifter project and a
stable base. As more outside references (google, web sites, etc.) point to Wikipedia, I'd like the casual reader/browser to find a worthwhile product.
The above assumes that whats on the WP is not worthwhile -- this after countless thoughts on the merits of a wiki -- why they are wrong about us -- people here ask "whats wrong with us?" Nothings wrong with the WP -- maybe some better inter-language connectivity ( reverse language links?)
Limholt:2. I'd like to see the electronic version
kept under the Wikipedia brand.
This "branding" concept is irrelevant -- marketers, accordint to the normal laws of capitalist S&D shouldt touch WP with a ten foot pole! Good! at 150k articles in three years, Id say Jims roll of the dice after a frustrated and expensive failure of Nupedia was a rather successful venture. Wouldnt you?
- The BP process seems OK, adding some controls to
limit access and movement (syssop status?) to the en0100 (version 1.00) protected pages. Technically, the en000 page doesn't need to be a database entry, just a reference to the time stamped page.
"Access. " "Limits" - wrong. Its important not to confuse process-perfection with ways that interfere with the interest of the public to give you their free time. Take away the fun -- and youll go (using Burning Man as an example) from a place of freedom and liberty people riding around on motorcycles naked with shotguns duct-taped to their thighs -- to one with a zillion restrictions and fees this way till Sunday. Blech.
-S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org