[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia 1.0 or Wikipedia 2004

[Ray Saintonge]

Stan Shebs wrote:

> Chuck Smith wrote:
>
>>> Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household
>>> name. I am confident that in a year's time it will be a
>>> name that is as well
>>> known as or better than Britannica and Encarta. 
>>
>> I just want to say that I agree completely.  We're in
>> the process of branding a name here.  "Wikipedia 1.0"
>> seems perfect to me.  It shows that it's stable and
>> includes the same name.  "Wikipedia 2004" could also
>> be used if we want to publish a new stable version
>> every year like traditional encyclopedias. 
>
> So, ideas:
>  "Wikipedia Pro 1.0"
>  "Wikipedia Stable 2004"
>  "Wikipedia Plus 1.0"
>  "Best of Wikipedia 1.0" (BOW, but suggests "bow wow")
>  "Wikipedia Select 2004"
>  "Wikipedia Snapshot" or "Wikipedia Snap"
>  "Bomis Wikipedia 1.0" :-) 

I find myself coming around to the idea that "Wikipedia" needs to be 
part of the name.  I agree that it would no longer be a wiki and just 
having the year in the title itself gives the impression that it is a 
snapshot.  Thus any additional words will be reduncancies of some sort. 
 Short titles are more attractive to the public..

There's a risk in trying to put too much into the first edition.  I 
support the idea of relatively short production runs that can be easily 
sold out.  The first edition especially is bound to have a lot of bugs 
and errors..  I even have doubts about whether a credible print copy can 
be produced in 2004.  Once the first edition is ready, it should be easy 
to produce CD versions quarterly.

> For specialized products, longer names are good too:
>  "Wikipedia Encyclopedia of Ships and the Sea"
>  "Wikipedia's Math-o-Rama"
>  "Wikipedia Games Compleat 2004"
>  "The Wikipedia Tree of Life: a comprehensive encyclopedia
>  of plants, animals, and protista"

How about Wikimedia's own stamp catalog, with a numbering system that 
can compete with Scotts' overprotected proprietary one.
Ec