Jimmy-
But in a print version, maybe this article
wouldn't be included:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Plutonium
Agreed. So long as the decision of what to print and what to avoid is
never political (e.g. "Controversies about Jehovah's Witnesses are of
limited interest -- they don't need to be put in the print version"), I
have no problem with it. But all the fictional character stuff, for
example, could be seriously trimmed for the printed edition.
Well, I'm with you on all of this. I have always
liked the Nupedia
name better
I always found "Nupedia" kind of vacuous, and people would probably
constantly misspell it as "Newpedia". One thing I really like about
Wiki[mp]edia is that it raises awareness of what wikis are and what they
can be used for. In many articles about Wikipedia, people have noted that
"Wikipedia is the largest wiki, but not the only one" and mentioned other
wiki sites like TolkienWiki. Wikipedia has greatly contributed to the use
of wikis as a technology. If Nupedia had used the wiki concept, some
people might have successfully lobbied for not using the term wiki at all,
because it is slightly obscure, eliminating this positive effect.
In a few years, everyone who knows Google will hopefully also have an idea
what a wiki is. This would never be possible if we wouldn't openly promote
the fact that we *are* a wiki. Also of note, many aspects of wiki
philosophy have rubbed off on us, generally positively, and we are a
recognized part of the wiki community.
I think the name Wikipedia resonates very well with our mission. It is
fresh and different -- not just another encyclopedia -- while not being
impossible to spell or pronounce (like "Kuro5hin"). I love the facial
expressions it creates when people hear it for the first time. The
immediate response I always received was curiosity.
Now the name Wiktionary, that's another story...
Regards,
Erik