[WikiEN-l] Print edition hurdles

[limholt at excite.com]

Mark Pellegrini (Raul654) on Feb. 28 described four hurdles to the Concise Print Wikipedia. To address them one at a time:

>A) Articles in en.wikipedia must not be frozen (or this would kill >the Wikipedia project), but must be stable enough that they can be >verified a print-ready.

Agreed, and so far no one has disagreed.

>B) Weblinks and interlinks have to be removed from our print >articles, but not from our regular database.

This has to be addressed in two parts. Weblinks could be retained in a printed Wikipedia. our current 'Printable Version' option does this, keeping any Wikipedia description and following it with the Web address. I have a number of books that include Web addresses. This doesn't decide if Web addresses are desirable in the Wikipedia Concise Encyclopedia (WCE). Even if kept, it would have some standard about ephemeral web pages compared to those that are fairly static and reliable.

Interlinks need only be removed if the article linked is not included in the WCE. I have seen Encyclopedia's where other articles are indicated by highlighted text, besides the more traditional 'q.v.' entry. Points previously raised about 'piped' links and redirects remain valid.

> C) While Wikipedia is not paper, a printed version is. Wikipedia >doesn't have to be concise, but a printed version does. By the same >token, electronic Wikipedia doesn't have to define terms very >precisely when interlinks can be used, but a paper encyclopedia, to a >larger degree, should. So we absolutely cannot just copy the articles >as they exist in the en database.

Yes, the Concise (or WCE) version must in some cases differ from Wikipedia. And I agree we can't just copy articles (never without inspection and consideration, but some might make it without change). As to definition of terms, an Encyclopedia, even a WCE, is not a dictionary.

>D) Forks, with the inevitable loss of efficiency that occurs from >repeated efforts, are always bad.

Yes,,,, BUT .. This becomes part of the decision as to whether to proceed, and if affirmative, whether the project succeeds or fails. I would expect a successful project to make some scope and manpower estimates, recruit (and/or authorize) volunteers, develop and adhere to a schedule. In some cases activities, (e.g. supply missing articles) would also benefit the normal 'en:Wikipedia'. But, in some cases volunteers will be giving up some of their normal Wikipedia time. With 5,000 users (abut 500 fairly active), the question becomes: 'Is the benefit of a printed CWE greater than the value of the lost contributions'? I suggest that each volunteer will need to come up with their own answer.






_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!