[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia subset proposal

[Stephen Gilbert]

Well, why not? It sounds good. But I'm confused: why
make the proposal here? Most of us will have nothing
to do with the project, simply because we're not
qualified.

Do you just want to know how we feel about using
Wikipedia articles in such a project? If so, I like
it. Go for it. Good luck.

Stephen G.

--- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> You can regard this as a follow up to
>
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-September/thread.html#start
> "Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more
> like the free
> software movement."
> 
> I want to make a proposal to make a new website that
> contains just a
> subset of Wikipedia articles.  Please, if you want
> to comment on this
> proposal, read it twice or three times; I have the
> strange effect on
> people of seeming to say one thing when really, I
> said the exact opposite,
> or something quite different, anyway.
> 
> Wikipedia is open content, so strictly speaking, I
> don't have to ask
> anybody's permission to do this, and in fact (see
> below), I think the new
> website should be entirely independent of Wikipedia.
>  But I *do* *really*
> want the approval of this community.  I want you, or
> many of you, behind
> the idea.  I want to start us all out on the right
> foot here.
> 
> ------
> 
> In view of the facts that Wikipedia has grown
> tremendously; that we have
> lost several of our most overeducated, overqualified
> participants due to
> disgust with having to deal with a few difficult,
> uncooperative
> participants; and above all, that there is a vast
> body of *hundreds* of
> highly educated and willing free encyclopedia
> participants waiting idle
> due to the dormancy of Nupedia; I propose the
> following:
> 
> (1) We--whether Bomis or someone else--should set up
> another website.  It
> should definitely not live at the Wikipedia.com
> domain.
> 
> (2) The purpose of the new website will be to
> *select* and *post*
> Wikipedia articles that are up to a certain
> standard.
> 
> (3) The only participants in the new website will be
> those that meet the
> Nupedia requirements in their particular fields, or
> some other similarly
> stringent requirements.
> 
> (4) Either I, or a small group of trusted people,
> will be responsible for
> approving participants.
> 
> (5) The website will be *read only*.  No one will be
> able to edit it
> directly, including its participants.  This means it
> *won't* be a wiki.
> 
> (6) Any participant will have to go to Wikipedia to
> make any edits to an
> article.
> 
> (7) Participants will save *particular versions* of
> articles, not the
> current article, whatever it happens to be.  There
> should be a link to
> "the most current version" of a given article on
> Wikipedia, as well.
> 
> (8) Implementing the website should not require
> *any* changes to
> Wikipedia.  I want to leave Wikipedia alone
> completely.  The only thing
> that *might* make sense is to add a link (which
> should be optional!) to a
> corresponding "subset" website article, if it
> exists.  In particular,
> "subset" participants should **not** be regarded as
> Wikipedia editors with
> any particular, special status on Wikipedia.  And
> "subset" policy,
> whatever it might turn out to be, should **not** be
> regarded as Wikipedia
> policy.
> 
> (9) Also, I don't think we should host this website
> on Nupedia.com.  Too
> many Nupedians will want to have nothing to do with
> it.
> 
> Caveats:
> 
> I realize that I and others have made similar sorts
> of suggestions in the
> past.  That's great.  Now let's do something.
> 
> The above is just a proposal.  I might be persuaded
> to get behind
> something quite different.
> 
> Another leading approval process idea, one that I
> have supported in the
> past, is the idea that *anyone* could approve *any*
> articles, and then
> users could make list of "approved approvers," i.e.,
> people whose opinions
> on articles they trust.  I still think that's an
> intriguing idea, but I
> also don't think it's one that will attract the many
> Nupedia participants
> who want to be working on a free encyclopedia
> project.  Elitism leaves a
> bad taste in my mouth as it does for many, but we
> *need* a *going* project
> that will attract some of the most educated,
> knowledgable, intelligent,
> clearest-thinking people to the overall task of
> building a free
> encyclopedia.  The point is obviously *not* to *be*
> elitist; it is to make
> a project that participants can see there are
> adequate safeguards that
> their time will not be wasted by any yahoo who can
> just come along and
> ruin their work.
> 
> There's nothing to stop us from implementing *both*
> proposals, by the way.
> (Someone made this point before, too, I remember.)
> 
> But I intend to get behind the proposal articulated
> in (1)-(7) above.  And
> I'd like to get any interested programmers behind it
> ASAP, and I'll be
> only too happy to collaborate on some of the basic
> policy and mission
> statements of the website.
> 
> Then we can get Julie and Michael back, perhaps, and
> put to work people
> like G. B. Lane, Gaytha Langlois, Michael Witbrock,
> Munawar Anees, Ruth
> Ifcher (of course!), and all the other smart and
> wonderful people I worked
> with on Nupedia.  Maybe this will be a way to get
> Nupedia itself
> kick-started again.
> 
> --Larry
> 
> 
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/