[WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition

Fri Feb 27 09:05:47 UTC 2004

Imran Ghory wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Timwi wrote:
>
>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>>Timwi wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, someone wanna start [[Wikipedia:Articles selected for print]] as
>>>>well as [[Wikipedia:Print candidate articles]] (or [[Wikipedia:Vote
>>>>for inclusion in print]] or whatever)?
>>>>
>>>I think it needs to be more systematic than that.
>>>
>>Please do elaborate! I want to hear your thoughts.
>>
>Perhaps we should build up a list of topic we should have methodologically
>(going through categories like coutries, sciences, arts,etc.) and then
>import those articles in.
>
That would be a good place to start.  Looking at the top level topics 
referenced from the Main Page would be good, and including general 
articles about what each of these subjects is would be important.  Those 
articles should be level in quality.  The big risk for 1.0 is to bite 
off more than we can chew.  If 1.0 is seen as reliable but small, then 
people will look forward to the expanded 2.0

We also need to do some serious fact checking.  I just looked at the 
page for the year 1237.  We show 11 items.  The book "The Timetables of 
History" has only 3 items.  Two of them we didn't have.  We had an error 
in the one that we did include.  (The Mongols invaded Russia in 1237, 
but not as The Golden Horde since it did not come into existence until 
1242)  People will judge the work on the reliability of these obscure 
details.  When it is published we should be prepared for a flood of 
claims saying that this or that is in error.

We need to consider the way that the work is organized.  Since Wikipedia 
is not paper we have not had to deal with most of the exigencies of a 
paper encyclopedia.  A seemingly simple issue, such as should all 
articles be in alphabetical order, can become a significant one.  We 
have well over 2,000 year pages that are worth including, but not 
alphabetically.

Ec