[Wikipedia-l] A quick thought about 1.0

Wed Dec 17 22:34:18 UTC 2003

From: Erik Zachte on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:40 PM

> Wikipedia is in the process of becoming a household name. 
> I am confident that in a year's time it will be a name that is as well
known as or 
> better than Britannica and Encarta.

> I think it would be too bad if we cause confusion by introducing a new
name for a 
> printed edition. Imagine Britannica had called their online version
"Amerannica", 
> what a waste PR wise.

PR should be a concern, but it should hardly be our first concern.

My opinion on the particular namings of things is somewhat formless.

All /I/ know is that I believe I have identified a trend of people
editing entries with an eye towards the print version, leading to (imho)
astoundingly long and digressive entries which try to fit all the
possibly relevant information on one page, with subtopics being
redirected into the omnibus--and to dislike the necessary and important
process of budding off detail into distinct entries.

Furthermore, I think that the combination of the natural inclination to
use the inclusionary criteria valid for paper encyclopedias (without
fully understanding the reasons for those criteria) and the inclination
among some to edit towards a print version of Wikipedia lead people to
overemphasize deletion as a tool.

It certainly may be the case that the promotion of "Wikipedia 1.0" has
nothing to do with this behavior, but unless I am mistaken there is a
pretty good overlap between those who are excited about and actively
pushing to have the "certification" process and paper version be part of
the Wikipedia project and those who actively delete pages and build
long, hierarchical entries and resist the creation of more specific
topics.

I could certainly be mistaken.

--tc