Daniel Mayer wrote:
Whoa! Waitaminute. Does that mean that all the element
articles I've
written have to be cut down in size? Most are two to five times
longer than any Encarta, Britannica or Comptoms article on the same
elements.
No, those are sweet.
I just reviewed:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
for example. Sweet.
I say that we absolutely need to keep all the content where we really
shine -- our ultimate goal is to be better than Britannica, to be the
finest encylopedia in history. We won't get there by leaving out our
best stuff.
But in a print version, maybe this article wouldn't be included:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Plutonium
Because as entertaining as it is, I'm not sure it would pass the test
of universal interest that we might need to employ.
But I don't want any of us to prejudge right now just how we might
proceed towards 1.0, nor about the details of what it'd look like,
other than "roughly as good as Britannica".
If that is the case then can we finally accept a bit
of reality and
admit that Nupedia is a dead project that has been superceded by
Wikipedia? We can then focus on picking the carcass of Nupedia clean
and forward that domain name to Wikipedia. I tried to express an
idea about how to revive Nupedia by making it a stable distribution
of Wikipedia, but there was little support for it (and in fact some
initial hostility). IMO, that was Nupedia's only hope.
Well, I'm with you on all of this. I have always liked the Nupedia
name better, and wish that I had just opened a wiki on Nupedia a long
long time ago, and left it at that. On the other hand, a clean break
with the past avoided a *lot* of internal political wrangling.
(And as is well known, we never have any internal political wrangling
now, ha ha!)
But now, Wikipedia is the bomb. The name is well known, unique, and
perhaps a little less 'dot-com' and more 'organic' if you see what I
mean.
One thing I never want is for Wikipedia proper, the site that we all
know and love, be 'ghettoized' by a 1.0/"Sifter".
--Jimbo