I've been approached by a major publisher about the possibility of
working with us to producing and publish a print edition of Wikipedia.
The concept that they are most interested in at the moment is a single
large volume, something similar to the Columbia Encyclopedia (a
desktop encyclopedia, 3200 pages) or Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
(2067 pages).
The Britannica Concise has 28,000 entries. The Columbia has 51,000
entries. I have no idea of estimated word or byte counts for those.
One goal would be to have something ready for market by October 1st,
in time for the holiday gift season. I'm unsure of how early before
that *we* would need to be ready.
I've only begun talking to them about it, which is why I won't say who
it is just yet. But they understand our license and want to work with
us.
The question was asked of me, and I ask of the community: can we have
something like that ready in time? Or should we shoot for next year?
I have long stated a goal that "Wikipedia 1.0" be ready in December of
this year, although we haven't actually made any formal decisions
about how we're going to do that.
So this is more ambitious and less ambitious. More ambitious in the
sense that we'd be trying to meet an earlier deadline. Less ambitious
in the sense that we'd be trying to do something smaller than a full
Britannica-killer.
--Jimbo
So, we have a policy on requests (see below), we're currently looking at
issues of recusal and suchlike. We're currently arbitrating the cases of Wik
and Irismeister, and discussing whether to accept the cases of Heph and
Anthony DiP for arbitration. Plus the normal informal discussion of stuff that
matters.
That's all.
----
The arbitration committee accepts requests for arbitration from anyone;
however, in most cases, the arbitration committee will only hear cases
referred to them by the Mediation Committee or directly from Jimmy Wales.
The arbitration committee will decide whether to accept cases based on its
Jurisdiction, as described previously.
The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it. The
arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed AND four arbitrators
have voted not to hear it. Individual arbitrators will provide a rationale for
their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested.
(Rationale: we believe most cases will be self-evident anyway, we don't
believe coming to a consensus over our reasons is a good use of our time)
-Martin
There's nothing wrong with having a recipe for filet mignon in the
[[filet mignon]] article, or for [[scramble eggs]], etc.
"How to" articles can be neutral and informative.
It's only if we can't manage recipes due to edit wars that we would have
to resort to WikiBooks. Suppose Anthere wants to use lots of butter in
all her recipes, but Daniel (mav) prefers vegetable oil. To prevent a
fight, we could link to Anthere's Guide to French Cuisine and Daniel's
Healthfood Cookbook at Wikibooks.
I oppose deleting material from the Wikipedia, just because it fits an
identifiable category. The only "fork" I've seen so far that makes sense
to me is the dictionaries. There's a clear distinction between "defining
a word" and "writing about a subject". But there's nothing wrong with
describing the process of stirring eggs so the yolk breaks and mixes the
white -- unless you're a segregationist! ;-)
Ed Poor
Mr. Wales, I do not understand why you are so upset. I asked you if you intended to use wikipedia as a revenue stream, and you indicate that you are intending to do just that. Where is the offense, please? That I suggest you want the information in wikipedia to be popular even where it is inaccurate? I'm sorry, I just am trying to make sense of your position here.
Why do you find it insulting that I suggested I was barred from posting to a list that I was told was unmoderated when my posts came back "waiting for moderation"? I'm sorry if I don't understand the process by which these moderations occur, I tried every fix that was explained to me, and in each case I was prevented from freely posting until today.
Codie Vickers
Yes, I can put Plautus on moderation. But I have no authority to do so.
When I took this job, it was quite firmly stated that my only task is to
"administer".
If a consensus develops that P. is flooding the list, and enough people
insist, I can turn on the moderation flag for any user.
Ed Poor
Mailing List Administrator
Wikien-l
Okay, I thought about it.
I'm unblocking Plautus, and I take full responsibility for him as a
"parolee" per your terms below.
Kind of like Frodo and Smeagol.
Wish me luck.
Uncle Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:09 AM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
Ed-
you're probably right. Plautus is just a misguided individual. All this
calling other users "dumb motherfuckers" and "fucking ignorant assholes"
has to be expected from a confused newbie. After all you yourself once
created a "Fucking asshole" account to make a point, remember?
Surely it is acceptable to lose 10 devoted, creative Wikipedians if we
can
keep a single crackpot around. I should really stop being so judgmental
and leave the important decisions to the people who got their priorities
straight, instead of looking at silly things like polls and hard
evidence.
If Ed believes that an individual is reformable, then we need to all sit
back and let the spirit of Sun Myung Moon work through him. I can't wait
to see you do your magic, Ed!
I have just one condition.
If this whole thing blows in your face, I want you to take full
responsibility for it. That means that I want you to go through every
single page Plautus satire edited in the last few days, to take diffs of
these edits and fix them if necessary. That includes erased comments on
talk pages, something he is very fond of.
How about it, Ed? Do you want the whole community to share your faith,
or
are you ready to fix things up if that faith turns out to be mistaken?
Regards,
Erik
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wikibooks are jointly edited. You don't get a book each, thank god.(what
would be the point of that!) The whole point of wikibooks is the style
is different. A wikibook instructs the reader as well as inform them.
This means we have exercises with answers, advice on how to tackle
topics, subjects broken down into individual lessons etc. That's why I
think recipes are better off in the wikibooks cookbook.
Theresa
-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W [mailto:Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com]
Sent: 27 February 2004 14:53
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes
There's nothing wrong with having a recipe for filet mignon in the
[[filet mignon]] article, or for [[scramble eggs]], etc.
"How to" articles can be neutral and informative.
It's only if we can't manage recipes due to edit wars that we would have
to resort to WikiBooks. Suppose Anthere wants to use lots of butter in
all her recipes, but Daniel (mav) prefers vegetable oil. To prevent a
fight, we could link to Anthere's Guide to French Cuisine and Daniel's
Healthfood Cookbook at Wikibooks.
I oppose deleting material from the Wikipedia, just because it fits an
identifiable category. The only "fork" I've seen so far that makes sense
to me is the dictionaries. There's a clear distinction between "defining
a word" and "writing about a subject". But there's nothing wrong with
describing the process of stirring eggs so the yolk breaks and mixes the
white -- unless you're a segregationist! ;-)
Ed Poor
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l