Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
An actually modest modest proposal |
No edit summary |
||
Line 40:
::: I wrote a script to do exactly this task: read the wikipedia database and build a static version in html, suitable to be put on CD or DVD. The current english Wikipedia is just about filling a 700MB CD, without including images. At present, stubs and very small articles take a huge amount of the used space, so if the biggest 75,000 articles are selected there would be enough space to include a good fraction of the images (the media directory on wikipedia is about 400 MB). Articles can be compressed, but then you need a reader program and it would much less portable (need different executables for win, mac, linux, etc.) [[User:At18|At18]] 16:39, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
::::Surprised it's that small, but, fine, seems like it can fit on one CD then with the pictures. Compression should be avoided until the browsers can all handle a standard compressed-html-file format. Something like .sit would be nice, easy to uncompress on the fly, already ubiquitous on Mac, easy to implement on Win or Linux, and if it was built into the browser, it could be just like a .txt or .htm file. There's time to put this in open source browsers before Dec '04. That would save probably 50% of the text space. In the long run of course, browsers should also be able to directly interpret [[m:Wikitax|Wikitax]]. ;-)
* 1.0 should be completely compliant with the GFDL. Currently Wikipedia has some rough edges (eg printable version) where this probably isn't the case.
** I think that's a given. Actually Secondary Section, Front-Cover Text, Back-Cover Text, and maybe even Invariant Section on the final distributed version ("this is part of Wikipedia 1.0") will probably play a role to make this work.
==Things We Need To Do==
Line 47 ⟶ 51:
* Clarify our goals with a set of specifications for the end product
** Settle CD-ROM vs. DVD-ROM capacity, number of versions/languages, first
***Judging by the above, it seems one CD-ROM for the Main English version is fine. Plan on another CD-ROM for [http://simple.wikipedia.com Simple English] and all other languages - to encourage the use of Wikipedia even in village schools in the developing world, for learning English, for kids learning other languages, and all that. Figure that's a good project for 2005, and could be released say by Dec.31 of 2005, using all the tools and procedures worked out for the Main English project. The multi-lingual stuff is enough work for one year! After that imagine releasing a new Main English version at the end of every even numbered year, and an other-languages-and-Simple-English version at the end of every odd numbered year. Unless we want to release them in time for September start of school year? That might be better.
* Create a procedure and some minimal policies (which will surely change with experience)
* Come up with a (likely bogus, but still inspiring) timeline for tasks to be completed
** The above is certainly bogus, and hopefully also inspring! I'd say aim for a release on September 1, 2004, to start the school year. If we miss, fine, fall back to December 31, 2004.
* Specify some default [[public ___domain]] sources, like 1911 British Encyclopedia, that could automatically added for empty articles, to be later edited by wikipedians, to improve it.
Line 69 ⟶ 77:
::How about at least some number of 'points' needed at the date of finalization, and more on controversial articles? Each user can give +1 or -1 per revision of article (or zero of course), each sysop +1.25 or -1.25, each developer +1.5 and -1.5, Jimbo +2 and -2. Suspected vandals +.5 or -.5, soft-banned vandals -1 and +1 (yes, they're flipped). Or something... [[User:Geoffrey|Geoffrey]] 01:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
::: It's absurd to confuse the social harmony of Wikipedia with editorial quality. Consider any factor other than someone's completeness, veracity and good-faith effort to get facts right, and the project falls apart. Giving sysops or the developers more points serves what purpose? These are people distracted by the admin process, who are clearly concentrating on something other than article quality. They are devoted but this is the wrong way to reward them. Since this is "culling", it makes more sense to "disapprove" than "approve" articles anyway.▼
: Two trusted people say yes, and no trusted people say no. Vetos would work well, and be appropriately conservative. Any article with an NPOV or accuracy dispute should be automatically off-limits.
:: Yes, although there is not really a [[Wikipedia:trust model]] yet. Those interested in this should maybe start there.
▲: It's absurd to confuse the social harmony of Wikipedia with editorial quality. Consider any factor other than someone's completeness, veracity and good-faith effort to get facts right, and the project falls apart. Giving sysops or the developers more points serves what purpose? These are people distracted by the admin process, who are clearly concentrating on something other than article quality. They are devoted but this is the wrong way to reward them. Since this is "culling", it makes more sense to "disapprove" than "approve" articles anyway.
* Software to convert [[Wiki-markup]], including [[HTML]], into a printer-friendly format (e.g. [[PS]]/[[Portable Document Format|PDF]]) automatically. This would be a great boon to us before and after "1.0".
Line 91 ⟶ 101:
:: You're right - Wiki-Markup is not [[proprietary]]. But it is also no [[Open standard]] since there is no specification. Somebody should urgend start an [[RFC]] or something like this. And the Wikipedia-Software should conform to the standard not pretend to be one. --[[User:Nichtich|Nichtich]] 23:18, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:::Yes. Read [[m:simple ideology of Wikitax]], it is a start towards an RFC. So is [[m:Wikitax]] but it's really not focused on making participation easier as the "simple ideology" is. And there are issues in geographic representation, names, etc., that are dealt within the "simple ideology".
:Software to convert Wiki-markup: wget? :-) Make a stylesheet that doesn't put sidebars, topbars, etc. - just shows the marked up text. Like nostalgia but ten levels simpler. Then wget the site recursively - preferably from a personal computer running MediaWiki and wgetting localhost, not off the real Wiki. [[User:Geoffrey|Geoffrey]] 01:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
::Would cut the load a *lot*. This is a local client solution, and a good one.
* I think you should be able to browse from the main page to any article. [[User:Jfeckstein|Jfeckstein]] 17:42, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Line 100 ⟶ 114:
:A "main page" makes no sense on paper. On CD, the requirements are different - a CD main page would have *no* dynamic content - except possibly an auto-generated "on this day" section.
:::There's no reason it can't be done as a dynamic main page simulator on a CD-ROM. It's just a cgi instead of a page.
::Better short urls (i.e. www.wikipedia.org/cocoa to go to www.wikipedia.org/wiki/cocoa
Line 109 ⟶ 125:
*A stub about each winner of a [[Nobel Prize]] (not very urgent--[[User:Youssefsan|Youssefsan]])
* Basic article of the main knowledge branches.
* Finish [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ecoregions]] with detailed boundary data.
* Finish [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities]] with detailed boundary data.
* Extend [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries]] with detailed boundary data.
(With those last three done, if we don't have a real map, we can generate one. There are examples of this on meta somewhere).
==Articles we should expand/improve==
Line 134 ⟶ 155:
::So as well as [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]], there'd be [[Wikipedia:Adequate prose]]? -- [[User:Jimregan|Jim Regan]] 08:35, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
::: Yes, that's a good place to start. Having people flag articles that *can* be brilliant prose focuses energy on going from "adequate" to "good", and some of those will end up "brilliant".
::: Imagine that what is now [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]] would get a note on it saying "Wikipedia 0.9 includes this version of this article" which goes away if the article is changed. The "adequate" articles say "Wikipedia 0.9 will be including a polished version of this article" to inspire people to work on it. That doesn't go away if people edit. So far, no promises about 1.0. Snapshot of all articles not presently in [[NPOV dispute]] or marked as [[stub article]] constitutes Wikipedia 0.8. The bar for getting from 0.8 to 0.9 is set high, at present Brilliant Prose level. If this doesn't work out, well, fine, we can always fall back, approve Brilliant Prose for 1.0, and adequate stuff for 0.9, while letting fertilizer flow from 0.8, asking only for it to become adequate.
I still think a CD 1.0 and a paper 1.0 would be very different beasts. On a CD, it woulnd't matter too much if we had as much material on The Simpsons as we had on medicine (say). On paper, it would be more noticeable. I personally would like to involved in a the work on a paper edition -- a one-volume edition, which would require a fair amount of trimming in some areas, and some late-night cramming in others -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 19:16, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Line 145 ⟶ 168:
One subject that needs a thorough think-thru is the links to nonexistent articles. There are several points that we should consider:
...which seem all to belong in [[Wikipedia:link editing]]
* On one or more sites that have "borrowed" Wikipedia content, links to nonexistent articles are quietly removed. While this is a defensible solution, I would also caution that these are votes for articles we need to write.
Line 157 ⟶ 182:
I guess you could consider me obsessed about links. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 21:39, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
One thing to consider about a print version is the order of the articles. Obviously we can't just alphabetize the titles as they are, and thereby list people under their first name. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 22:09, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
Line 166 ⟶ 192:
* According the history of GPL-Software I strongly prefere a version number less than 1.0 for the first offline-release.
** Presumably, to be "pushing to 1.0" means having a "0.8" soon, and a "0.9" between now and then. So let's just say everything in Brilliant Prose is at 0.9 and everything adequate is at 0.8, and let's then argue about what "adequate" is, very inclusive requiring disapproval to exclude, or exclusive requiring approval to include.
* Are you talking about a standalone Wikipedia on CD/DVD or a printed extract of Wikipedia?
Line 183 ⟶ 209:
I'm majorly in favor of making a paper version of "Wikipedia: World History" or "Wikipedia: Quantum mechanics" or something like that before going ahead with the full effort because it will help us decide whether we want to do it at all and if so, what is required to do, without sidetracking too much effort from the main project. -- [[User:Arvindn|Arvindn]] 05:12, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
: Yes, a good test of capability and process. I'd suggest doing [[Ecology]] first, though, since ecological borders and processes don't really change fast, then [[History]] (political borders and movements of peoples and changes in languages), then [[Geography]] (since place names and borders are totally dependent on history). That gives us a good look at the [[Earth]]. Then all Plants, all Animals and [[Biology]]. Another group can do [[mathematics]], [[quantum mechanics]] and [[particle physics]], things that are globally standard with only one set of names, and a small cult of high priests each that actually thinks they are real. That group should then be forced to do all of [[Religion]] next.
----
Line 196 ⟶ 222:
So, all in all, I wonder whether the very considerable extra effort required to produce a 1.0 print edition is worth it. At the very least, I would argue we should aim for a "0.9 CD-only" edition first.
::Or even just a CD-size archive that can be downloaded and widely tested on all kinds of machines, including low-end ones like are still used in many schools.
Another issue is whether we can find funding to pay people to do some of the grunt work of putting 1.0 together. --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 06:00, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:Full agreement with Merkel. I don't think enough of us have fully considered how much time this would take away from working on the actual Wikipedia; and the cost of this in print form would likely be prohibitive. I would have thought that Wikipedia 1.0 would be on CD-ROM only. In a year or two, we could produce Wikipedia paperbacks on specific topics, such as Science, History, etc, each of which would be a lot more manageable to edit, cheaper to produce, and easier to make some sort of profit from. (I assume profit would go to the Wikipdia foundation?) [[User:RK|RK]] 16:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:Paperbacks for profit to fund things is a good idea. But you must have a [[Wikipedia:trust model]] before you can have a [[Wikipedia:revenue model]]. Else you go the way of [[Enron]].
----
Line 228 ⟶ 258:
There must be some means of categorization, so that we can mark those articles that will never be suitable for a print edition, and perhaps also so we can mark those articles that are by consensus considered complete for 1.0.
:Anything in [[Wikipedia:brilliant prose]] is aleady complete for 0.9 except perhaps for link trimming we may choose to do. But I think redirecting any missing articles to more general ones is better than changing anything in a brilliant article.
There will also be a need to mark which revision is considered most suitable for print publication. Exactly how this is done is likely to prove contentious, but the fact remains that we will need to freeze some articles when they are good enough and sufficiently reviewed, while still working on others. We may be best served by making these markers relatively easy to move at first, with increasing difficulty of movement as we reach closure.
Line 235 ⟶ 267:
I advocate strongly for a version on cd-rom even if require 2 or 3 cd-roms and must be installed on a HD to be usable (this doens't exclude a DVD version). DVD burner are not very common and even DVD readers are not very common in third world countries where many people would be interrested by a free encyclopedia.
[[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 20:12, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:Yes true. Save DVD for Wikipedia 3.1 ;-) The fully UN-funded version.
As some articles use complex HTML layout a distribution in HTML seems obvious to me but how to implement a search feature ?
| |||