If that's the proposal, I'm all for it. I've had
similiar thought myself.
Stephen G.
--- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)epost.de> wrote:
Let me try to summarize:
1. Articles are written by experts, or are copied
from "free
encyclopedia sources"
2. They get checked and maybe expanded by experts
3. They are stored in a "safe" place where every
change, if any, is
controlled
4. These modified articles are a "free encyclopedia
source" again
5. As a result, these articles (or parts of them)
can be integrated into
the "free encyclopedia sources" from #1
So, Wikipedia could be the basis for Nupedia (which
is no problem in
itself; I could open up "Magnuspedia" today, based
on Wikipedia, and
declare it expert-edits only, and noone could stop
me). But, whatever
the experts at Nupedia will come up with, it will
probably be better
than the corresponding Wikipedia article it is based
on. Wikipedia can
only profit from such edits, as they can be used in
turn.
There's one thing Wikipedia will always beat Nupedia
in: Growth. At the
moment, that is growth in the number of articles.
Bu, at some point, it
will be growth of individual articles. Many articles
I originally
submitted to Nupedia have been growing enormously on
the fertile soil of
Wikipedia. Articles can grow on Wikipedia, be
proof-read in Nupedia, and
gan then grow further on Wikipedia again.
What I'm trying to say is Wikipedia and Nupedia
won't be a fork, because
they're not really competition; they could both
benefit from a symbiosis.
Magnus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com