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?
>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.
"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