[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia v. Britannica
erik_moeller at gmx.de
Tue Aug 19 03:03:31 UTC 2003
> 1. Wouldn't it be cool if instead of the way to geeky sounding name
> "Wikipedia 1.0" we named it "Wikipedia 2004" or whichever year it gets
> released? Just like Windows and Windows is successful!
Way to shoot down your own argument there by comparing us to a criminal
proprietary software vendor ;-). I can live with something like "Wikipedia
2004" as long as whatever naming scheme is used is consistently used for
each release, not changed all the time, and as long as the 2004 edition is
actually released in 2004.
> 2. I want pictures!
Join this WikiProject:
I think we already have quite a few brilliant pictures, but we can
certainly always use more.
> My utopian wish is for every article to have a nice picture of
> the article's topic on it.
Difficult to do for copyrighted/trademarked characters and brands. There
won't always be a workaround solution like on [[Mickey Mouse]].
> Unfortunately there aren't many good FDL
> photographs out there.
There are heaps of US gov'T PD photos which we haven't yet put to use, and
the awareness of open content is increasing thanks in large part to
> 3. Better search. The current one doesn't work very well. And the fact
> that if you search for "Stalin" for example, takes you to the Stalin
> page instead of a listing of pages containing the word Stalin is annoying.
It doesn't. There is a "Search" and a "Go" button. The Go button tries to
display the page you search for directly, the Search button gives you a
list of results. See [[Wikipedia:Go button]] on en:.
> 4. Some organisation. WP is very chaotic. If I was to find the article
> about Stalin without using the search function it would be very hard.
Well, the people on
have demonstrated that it's possible to get to almost anywhere from almost
anywhere reasonably quickly. The upcoming category scheme will be of
> 5. Maybe we could start with releasing just a segment of the wiki-web?
> It is very possible that there isn't enough interest in a printed WP
> version. Maybe not in a CD version either and then someone has done alot
> of wasted work. So instead why not release "Wikipedia: Organic
> Chemistry" or "Wikipedia: World War II" as a litmus tet? There are
> thousands of articles just waiting to be written in each of those subjects.
May be a good idea in any case, as not every potential user of Wikipedia
material is interested in US celebrities, porn vocabulary or Tolkien
> 6. How would wiki-links be implemented in a text version?
Translate links to existing pages (in that edition) to underlines, hide
links to non-existent pages.
More information about the Wikipedia-l