[Wikipedia-l] Nupedia?

[Daniel Mayer]

On WikiEN-L:

I wrote:
>Do we still need to be so oriented toward editing when we already have well 
>over 4,000 edits a day and nearly 200,000 articles? A slow-down in editing 
>and increased emphasis on getting things in stable form should become more of 
>a priority. IMO, the best way to market that - both internally and externally 
>- is by using nupedia.org to host the stable content. 

Tarquin responded:
>I agree with everything mav said here.
>I just *HATE* the name Nupedia.
>It's the "nu" for "new", and also the fact that "new" won't 
>really mean much in, say, 20 years' time.

Suggestions....? I like name 'Nupedia' because; 
1) it is a brand we already own 
2) we already control the .com and .org
3) while not as famous as the name 'Wikipedia', it still is known of by many 
people (over 40,000 hits on Google)
4) it is easy to pronounce
5) the 'nu/new' connection relates to the underlying concept (free content 
created by a worldwide community of voluntary authors), not its age (thus it 
will take the 'newness' a few hundred years to wear off - assuming that the 
free content movement really takes hold).

However, what about the other Wikimedia projects? Should we try to buy-up 
other 'nu' domains? At first I thought it would be a great idea to have a 
Wikimedia-owned publishing house called "Numedia"  but alas that fine name is 
taken http://numedia.com/ (the .org is owned by somebody else). But 'Nubooks' 
would work (.org and .com available)... NumediaPublishing.org/com is 
available but that name is too long. 

Other problems:
*Nusource.com taken http://Nusource.com/ (.org available, however)
*Nuquote.com taken by a cybersquatter (.org available, however)
*Nutionary - NOOOO!!! Don't even think of it! Terrible, terrible name. 
*Nudictionary.org/.com available but the name is just too long and too bland, 
IMO.

We do own Gnupedia.org/.com but as somebody else already mentioned that that 
title would indicate a stronger connection to the GNU Project than actually 
exists and may in fact infringe on their trademark. 

But I really don't think 'wiki' should be in the title of any Wikimedia 
content that is published in non-editable form (that would include any static 
website it is hosted on and any hardcopy such as books or a '1.0' version of 
Wikipedia). 

If you can't edit it, it ain't wiki! 

So even though 'nu' can't be expanded to cover static versions of all 
Wikimedia content, I think we should still use the 'Nupedia' name for a 
static version of Wikipedia content unless a better scheme is hatched. 

Better suggestions, of course, most welcome (especially if it is a single name 
that could cover /all/ Wikimedia static content). Such a name could be used 
by a Wikimedia publishing house - it in turn would publish Wikimedia-derived  
encyclopedias, books, dictionaries and source texts after that content went 
through some sort of approval process. 

Just some thoughts of mine. Please add yours.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)