[WikiEN-l] Concise Print Wikipedia is a Fork

[Delirium]

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>>One example of the difference is in internal references 
>>(or q.v. entries). Even if the 'news style' first section 
>>approach is used, the first section of the full Wikipedia 
>>article would contain links to articles that don't exist in 
>>the concise version.     
>>    
>>
>
>Oh come on. That is easy to fix - don't mark what would be dead links in a
>concise version as anything special. This could be done automatically. 
>  
>
But we also often use links to be explanatory, which isn't appropriate 
for print.  On Wikipedia we can say "follower of [[so-and-so]]", but in 
print, you really should say "follower of [[so-and-so]], who was 
blah-blah-blah".

Of course, the non-fork solution is to make Wikipedia articles like 
that.  Which I do to some extent, because I don't like, even on the web, 
the idea of having to click through to another article to make sense of 
the current one.  But it's a massive task, as currently a lot of 
Wikipedia articles are not fully intelligible on their own, without the 
links.

-Mark