limholt(a)excite.com wrote:
One of the goals generally included in the Wiki
1.0 discussion is
the creation of a paper Wikipedia. This sems to
have an assumption
that lot's of material gets dropped or
summarized.
Well, I don't *think* so. Right now, we're in the
ballpark of the
size of Britannica, possibly a bit bigger. But
then, we have a fair
amount of questionable fluff lurking around. So if
we're thinking of
1.0 being approximately equivalent in size and
quality to Britannica,
we shouldn't have to cut anything good from where we
are today.
In the future, this will likely be a problem. If
Wikipedia 2.0
follows 1.0 by a 3 year time span, for example, it's
likely that it
would be twice as big and totally problematic as a
print version.
But for 1.0, I don't envision a lot of cutting.
I can totally imagine in the future that we'll have
multiple sifted
editions, for example:
Wikipedia 2.0p - full version, paper
Wikipedia 2.0d - desktop paper, a highly shortened
version
Wikipedia 2.0e - electronic, no size constraints at
all
Wikipedai 2.0r - raw, sifted articles plus
everything else, too
But rather than get into a game of excessive a
priori design, I think
we should stick to "1.0 is just 1.0" as a mantra.
And what I mean by
that is that we keep a 1.0 release simple, a single
release, and the
approval process focussed on openness and
reliability of articles,
rather than infinite flexibility for potential
printers/publishers/distributors.
I do also like the idea of Wikipedia: History of
Rock Music and
similar. But "1.0 is just 1.0". :-)
--Jimbo
Although I agree with you in theory, it would just
take too much time. If we set up a project where a
group of known wikipedians would systematically go
through every article would be of great benifit to
wikipedia, but we shouldn't halt the wiki development
process. After a lot of math, I found that we'd need
45 people to do this over 3 years. Although this makes
it seem impossible, think how long and how many people
it would take to make wikipedia.
It would be nice if we had a feature of the software
for this reviewing thing. It could give a random page
from a subset of wikipedia yet to be reviewed, and
then you'd edit it. After editing it, you would say if
it is britannica-quality yet. If two people said yes
for the same article, it would be taken out of the
subset of articles to be reviewed. It could still be
edited, but it would be assumed that all new edits
would be checked and if they were destructive, the
article would be returned to encyclopedic quality. All
new articles would go to this reviewing subset. Were
there any other schemes for article reviewing?
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software