[WikiEN-l] Nupedia?

Sat Dec 13 07:09:25 UTC 2003

Erik wrote:
>...
>- In any case, it complicates all marketing operations significantly. 
>It's difficult enough to explain what a wiki is. The probable result 
>would be that we wouldn't even bother anymore to explain it and 
>just point people to the stable version. That in turn would reduce 
>the influx of contributors.

I've been basing this on the success of the distribution/project distinction 
in the free software world where the end users benefit by a two mode process 
(free software coders work on their own projects and the distributors put 
that all together in a nice, easy to use and polished product, while making 
sure that any improvements are incorporated into the free software projects). 

However I do see the point that our end users are much more likely to become 
contributors than are end users to free software due to inherent learning 
curve issues in the coding world. But still, our stats indicate that there 
are 30 views to each edit and I expect that ratio to increase as we become 
more popular and more topics are filled-in and filled-out. 

There will also always be a great many people who will not trust anything on a 
wiki. So all this begs the question; are we here to make an encyclopedia for 
the sake of making an encyclopedia, or are we here to make an encyclopedia 
whose content will be used by and be most useful to, the greatest number of 
people? 

Having both stable and development versions of our content will make it most 
useful to the greatest number of people. The best way to market that is to 
make the distinction between the development and stable versions very clear. 
IMO the best way to accomplish this feat is to host the stable content on 
another domain with an interface that is optimized for content viewing. 
Wikipedia, however, is optimized for content adding and editing - as it 
should be.

Hosting the stable versions at Nupedia will slow down direct recruitment a 
bit, but it will also greatly increase the number and quality of readers of 
our content. A certain percentage of them will be interested in the 
development end of our content and will enter the ruff and wild world of 
Wikipedia to lend a hand. But most will just want of have reliable info. So 
having a buffer between pure readers and editors should increase the average 
quality of newbie editors. 

Do we still need to be so oriented toward editing when we already have well 
over 4,000 edits a day and nearly 200,000 articles? A slow-down in editing 
and increased emphasis on getting things in stable form should become more of 
a priority. IMO, the best way to market that - both internally and externally 
- is by using nupedia.org to host the stable content. 

Most people just want the reference material they use to fullfill their needs. 
They can use Nupedia which would be optimized for them and their needs. Other 
people are concerned about fullfilling the needs of the reference material. 
They can use Wikipedia since it is optimized for them. 
*Both will be joined at the hip yet have different specialties. 
*Both will make it very clear their association with the other. 
*Both will interoperate and encourage cross pollination.
*Both will be one click away from each other. 
*Both win.

Is adding one single click to edit an article going to be that harmful weighed 
against the marketing advantages of using Nupedia.org?

--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)