Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 2

This is an archive of material from Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, covering Nov 2004-Aug 2005.

Publicity

I'm wondering about somehow putting up some standing notice that this team exists, for the benefit mainly of new users. But I have no idea about where might be most appropriate. Maurreen 03:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added the project under the Community Portal under Things You Can do. That should at least let Wikipedians know that we exist. --Randy 02:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Maurreen 05:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noting our checks

I wonder if it would be good to document specific references or other details that we check. For one thing, that would show other people that they don't need to check the same information. We could do this either with hidden comments or the talk page of the articles we work on. Maurreen 15:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a sub-page on any page that is being checked, which has a list of anything that a page may need checking (with additional article specific ones). These can then be struckthrough once checked, with notes added to the bottom. Could be in the form Article/checks or something equally mundane. - Estel (talk) 20:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

copyvios

I am comping strongly to the opinion (POV?) that copyvios are the most serious objection to many parts of wikipedia. With careful use of Google, I find really many. What will you do to attempt to clean these out as you work through articles? Mozzerati 23:01, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

One always has to be careful -- many things that appear to be copyright violations are in fact sites that borrow our content. If you are sure, though, that the site you're looking at isn't a "mirror" of Wikipedia, you should always list the article in question at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Jwrosenzweig 23:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't answer the question sooner. We don't have a specific plan for copyright violations. I expect that if it's a textual matter, it will be self-correcting through numerous edits. Maurreen 00:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mozzerati that there are lot of copyright problems in wikipedia. This isn't too much of a problem with a website (because of its dynamic nature) if someone complains, you just remove it. But I think that a LOT of CVs slip through "numerous edits" and if one slips through to a DVD, fixing it won't be trivial. A recent struggle with the flecainide article serves as a good example, even after extensive editing much of the CV material remained. The article is now up to a very good standard (and as far as I can tell, free of CV) but the whole experience left me somewhat cynical. I didn't get much response from posting on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and in general I have a hard time figuring out where to post problems I find anyway. But that's tangental. The point is that I think you're going to have to include verifying that the article is free of CV problems as part of your standard. Matt 23:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but I have no idea how we can check for that. I'm certainly open to suggestions. Maurreen 23 December

• Why not contact Plagiarism.org? They provide an automated plagiarism detection service. Use a bot to check every article in Wikipedia and add a result to the discussion page. Use markup to indicate if something on a page has been checked and confirmed public domain or not truly copied to tell their bot to ignore.

It would be free advertising for them...Mike Friedman 02:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your idea has potential. Can you make such a bot? Maurreen 10:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear. A company like "Plagiarism.org" can make such a bot and might be willing to do so for the publicity bennies given how close it is to their core business. However to get something like that going someone would need to approach them. Most likely someone who has more control and authority over Wikipedia since they are unlikely to do this without an agreement with someone in "authority". Obviously in a consensus driven organization like this finding an appropriate authority can be a problem... I'm not sure how to go about that. Mike Friedman 16:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see now. Maybe it would be good to suggest your idea at the copyvio page, and also announce the discussion at the Village Pump. Maurreen 17:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Basic topics

Today I created User:Maurreen/Basic topics to list a small selection of core topics. This could be useful, for instance, if someone is interested in our general goal but not our specific process. Maurreen 00:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does Culture really meet the standard?

• I think Culture is well-written, and decent as far as it goes, but do you really think it is comprehensive? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's not nearly comprehensive. I've changed the project page to reflect that. Maurreen 07:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I thought the previous agreement on the 'Pushing to Wikipedia 1.0' page stated that the Wikipedia 0.5 Standard was to be classified as "usable articles". --Randy 12:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Randy, I can't answer you fully yet, but "comprehensive" is a higher bar than "usable." Maurreen 16:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Standard Requirements

Proposed Requirements

• Some method of validating articles
• There will be some mechanism within the software to give the reader easy access to the last stable version.
• Some method of amending articles so they are suitable for publication.
• A set of standards:
  • Usable articles - Lets call it the Wikipedia 0.5 standard
  • Featured articles - Lets call it the Wikipedia 1.0 standard
  • Extension standard required for electronic publication (CD/DVD)
  • Extension standard required for a paper publication

Proposed Wikipedia 0.5 Standard

Requirements:

• Must be factually accurate, comprehensive, and well-written
• Must be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy

Proposed Wikipedia 1.0 Standard

Requirements:

• Must be factually accurate, comprehensive, and well-written
• Must be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy
• Must include a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic
• Must include images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate
• Must include headings and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents
• Must include references when and where appropriate
• Must comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects as well as those in the style manual

Discussion

Does anybody have an idea to change or improve the current Proposed Standard Requirements? I think we need to establish them fairly soon to know what quaility we are shooting for. --Randy 12:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm relatively open. This isn't a complete answer, but I think "usable" is a lower bar than what you've set for 0.5 (well written and comprehensive). My understanding of "usable" is basically that the article would be adequate, not needing cleanup or having any serious disputes. Maurreen 16:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I could see adding a 0.1 level: factually correct and conforms to NPOV, no comment on completeness. Even a stub might meet that. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree we should establish/figure this out. Adding that 0.1 level would be appropiate in my mind... then the assembling is reasonably easy to go about doing, and know what articles need to be added. Perhaps we should have a 1.0, 0.5, and a 0.1 page each link off of this page so we can start assembling lists? Lyellin 20:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. And whoever asserts they meet a certain level should place their sig after the name of the article. Multiple sigs for an article welcome. If someone disagrees, they indicate with "OPPOSE" and a sig, and start a discussion on the talk page; eventually we'll need a good discussion mechanism. Right now, though, this would be a good ad hoc way to get started. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that. Lyellin 22:25, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, all of you guys have good ideas. We need to agree on a way that we are going to orgainze the validated articles and to-be-validated articles, as well as what standards they meet and what needs to be done to improve them. If anybody is feeling bold, feel free to organize the content to fit the needs of what we're going to be doing. --Randy 20:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm leaning more toward keeping 0.5 meaning "usable" or "adequate", articles with no obvious serious or major problems with what it does have (putting aside sources for the time being). I think that would take into account the great range of quality (or lack) within Wikipedia.

About being factually correct, my guess is that verifying that is not something that can always be done quickly.

Also, I'm confused about which talk page we're going to be making these notes on. Maurreen 06:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Identifying articles that meet these standards

Why don't we start with some feartured articles, hoping most of those on User:Taxman/Featured articles with references problems will be 0.5 and the many of the rest may even make 1.0. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I like that. Btw, I've seen a list before of essential topics any encyclopedia should cover as a guide for those looking for an article to improve to featured status; IIRC the list came from the Simple English Wikipedia. Perhaps that list could be used here as well? However, I doubt all our featured articles should be in 1.0 — they are just too specific. Maybe on a DVD or one of those new fancy technologies it would be feasible, but if we're going to put this on a CD, I think we should cover only the most important subjects. Johnleemk | Talk 05:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't the entire current English Wikipedia fit on a single CD-ROM anyway? J.K. 06:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As of 9, October 2004, the database was 170GB. And that's just text, excluding images and multimedia. If my math is correct, that would take 249 regular CD discs. --Randy 22:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm still confused about what the standards are and where the identification is going. Maurreen 00:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regrouping: Tweak and combine the two strategies?

It seems like we have some good ideas that have stalled out: essentially, rating the articles and editing them.

I'm thinking we probably don't yet have a strong enough base to bring most articles to a 1.0 standard in one shot. For the time being, maybe it would be better to confine concentrated work on any given article to just a week. It might be hard to sustain interest past that time period. Also, then we could be listed among the "Collaborations of the Week" and we might draw more interest and help that way.

Assuming we have consensus on the list of basic topics (if not, we can discuss and change that also), maybe short reviews of the articles on that list would be better than numerical ratings. By "short", I mean that any given review might be just two paragraphs, indicating strengths and weaknesses.

Then maybe we could use those reviews as a basic guide for editing the articles, such as which ones need more or less work, and what type of work.

What do you think? Maurreen 07:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to start by giving priority to getting all currently featured articles up to 1.0 standard. One by one is fine, though I'd suggest three or four at a time on divergent topics, so people with vastly different interests can participate. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:08, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea, leading by example is generally best. Stirling Newberry 04:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe each of us could suggest an article from Wikipedia:Featured articles. Those at User:Taxman/Featured articles with possible references problems might be of special interest. Of any of them, I'd prefer working on the broader topics before the narrower ones. Maurreen 05:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggested articles to work on

• Economics Maurreen 05:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Punk rock Jmabel | Talk 21:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I went through the Punk rock article and corrected some style errors and other minor things. What else do you think needs to be done? *Kat* 02:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Steel could use a phase diagram, both for completeness and for clarity of the crystallography/chemistry discussion. I want to put an image request up on the Commons with the following text once the database unlocks:

An iron-cementite phase diagram (similar to this one, though perhaps less comprehensive) for the steel article in all languages. The English wikipedia has a wordy discussion of the basic features of this phase diagram, but a picture is truly worth a thousand words in this case. The knowledge in such a diagram, explicit or implicit, forms the basis of most of the metallurgy (by value) done since the industrual revolution, and no discussion of steel is complete without it. Anyone well-versed in solid-state chemistry and programming can generate it algorithmically from published thermodynamic data on the free energy of the phases present, and a few other details like the Curie temperature of ferrite. A rough first-draft would just require plotting the points with labelled temperatures and some approximate curves. Is anyone up to the challenge?--Joel 04:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Is it worthwhile producing one (or possibly more?) template that could be placed on a talk page, this would inform the 'regular' editors of said article about Wikipedia 1.0 and 0.5 standards, which they can then help to conform to, whilst increasing general awareness of the project itself. - Estel (talk) 22:49, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. ... One thing is that I'm not sure what the standards are. ... But it might be good to just put a note on the talk pages. Maurreen 09:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's first have a vote of some sort to see what the standards need to be and whether or not the proposed standards need to be revised or totally redone. --Randy 18:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Standards

I don't remember where the level of "usable" originated, but I believe it was given in the context of four levels: VFD, cleanup, usable or feature-worthy.

The proposal for a 0.5 level seems inconsistent to me. "Must be factually accurate, comprehensive, and well-written" is a much higher level than "usable", especially given the context above.

The proposed additional requirements for the 1.0 level seem minor to me. Putting aside the "usable" part, it would be more difficult to go from 0.0 to 0.5 than from 0.5 to 1.0. Maurreen 07:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to join the team

I'm a fairly good writer, a hard worker, and although I am new to Wikipedia, I have picked the code up fairly quickly. I enjoy getting involved in worthwhile projects, and I'd like to become involved in this. I don't have a huge amount of time on my hands, but I'm generally pretty good at making time. I'd like to join y'all. Will you have me?*Kat* 07:47, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Just put your name on the list. Andre (talk) 22:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Question

If I haven't misinterpreted the discussion, the intent of the project is to produce a CD ROM version of the Wikipedia. What is the Encyclopedia going to focus on? Is it going to be a general sampling of Wikipean articles or will it be something really specific such as, (for the sake of conversation) The Wikipedian Encyclopedia of European History

I think we had in mind something broad and general. Maurreen 09:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's broader than that. Yes, before going to CD-ROM would make sense we'd need to be up to this level, but the discussion is about getting all or (identifiable) parts of Wikipedia up to the standards where it is reasonable to use it as a reliable encyclopedic reference. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Providing Wikipedia in CD ROM version is a great plan. I see from my country's condition that Internet connection is not yet good and expensive for most of us. Would anybody like to answer these questions:

1. will CD ROM version provide static HTML, i.e. users can browse articles directly with browser? (no need local Web server to be installed)
2. how about the license of distribution? I hope it will be free in term of GPL itself.

I would like to write about this plan in my blog that covers IT for small organization, because it will be very important for us. -- Ikhlasul Amal 12:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also meta:Wikipedia on CD/DVD and [1]. [[Regarding your second question: Most of the Wikipedia text (and I believe most of the images) are licensed under the GFDL license only. This means that the license of distribution will also have to be the GFDL. It's a free license (well, sufficiently free) and is similar to GPL. — Matt Crypto 13:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would think any CD version would not need the Internet at all. Also, I'm not sure there is yet a plan, just some people working toward a goal. I think sometimes what we're doing has been overstated or misunderstood. Maurreen 16:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding CD versions and "static HTML": I'm working on a piece of software designed to enable Wikipedia-on-a-CD, and I've found that the "static HTML" approach is infeasable for any significant number of articles, due to two major problems. The first is that CDs have a "block size" of 2048 bytes; the size of any file on-disc is rounded up to the next nearest multiple of 2048. The second is that storing complete HTML copies of each article wastes a significant amount of space through redundancy. However, by using a hybrid compression technique, and a cross-platform miniature webserver that reconstitutes the webpages on the fly, it's possible to fit the entire english wikipedia (minus media) on a single CD with room to spare, while still maintaining excellent performance. Andrew Rodland 04:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good job, sounds spiffy. Maurreen 05:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed standards incompatible with Wikipedia.org

I've removed these two proposed standards:

• • Extension standard required for electronic publication (CD/DVD)
  • Extension standard required for a paper publication

They are incompatible with the wikipedia.org legal situation, which cannot produce works for CD or print without producing legal liability for wikipedia.org and the Wikimedia Foundation. The normal online protections (the CDA] and OCILLA) are not available for CD or print works and preparing a print or CD version. Those doing the selecting and editing would clearly be legally liable for any content they included, regardless of whether they produced it themselves originally. For that reason, I recommend that nobody without copyright and other legal risks insurance participate in any project with a print or CD target. Being bankrupted by legal action is a substantial risk for anyone participating in the activity.

What would be reasonably legally safe is tagging based on quality metrics with no specific print or CD target. Anyone else could then use those metrics to select articles for any arbitrary target they desire, with only those selecting for non-online targets being liable. Jamesday 03:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another plan? Exxxcellent.

I've just found this page. I also have a draft plan for 1.0 at User:David Gerard/1.0. I've also created Category:Wikipedia 1.0 and put several pages (including this one) into it.

My plan includes a rating system (e.g. m:Article validation feature) to let the wiki do the work of sifting out the first draft. (Editorial committees won't scale; opinions do.) This will give a group set up to do the heavy lifting something more specific to work with.

The essence is to let the wiki do the work wherever possible, minimising the heavy lifting required afterward. Not only is this likely to go down better with the community, it's likely the only way we'll get the process to scale to a 500,000-article database - David Gerard 13:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I think our main aim here is more to improve the articles that would go in such a release. Maurreen 08:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but consider the difference between having 100 or 1000 articles needing serious work versus one million. More: look at WP:FAC and see how much hard work it is for one person to bring one article up to a mark of excellence that others will acknowledge. I've brought two articles to featured status (and had two fail) in areas I'm a subject matter expert in, and I think I can say it's a lot of work.

Even if an editorial committee's job is to bring articles up to being not necessarily "brilliant prose" but even "tolerable prose", assistance from the vast body of readers and editors will be of use. (I'm working here on the assumption that most people's ratings will be honest and good faith, and that bad faith raters will be averaged out or dropped by proposed mechanisms such as dropping the top and bottom 10% of votes.)

Article creation scales with the number of editors. Editorial committees don't scale with the number of articles. I submit that a rating system will be essential if an editorial committee is to have an amount of work in its in-tray that can be processed by a finite group of humans. - David Gerard 23:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And even noise is data. Articles which don't have a normal distribution of ratings signal articles with polarized POVs.Stirling Newberry 01:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excellent description. I would think each version of each article could have multiple sliding (two or three binary bit for 4 or 8 levels) attributes that are available for all editors to "set" (or to opine on, or skew, though that might be anti-wiki) when they edit. And these attributes (with the 4 or 8 levels) could be used at any time to produce Wikipedia selections for any purpose. I suggest we be exceedingly generous in dabbling with attributes, and pull back later from those that don't work. There could be attributes for content that incites common sensitivities (ethnic, religious, erotic, culinary). There could be an attribute for article reliability that automatically sets itself according to the community reliability (trust) of the one who saved that version. There could be attributes for development level (language, completeness, organization, neutrality, references, etc.). The sky is the limit, and we should start with a big list that we gradually trim as we hone in on the most usefull attributes. Tom Haws 21:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen's right, though, that this is probably off-topic for this page, which is for the stage after that ;-) m:Article validation feature could do with that suggestion, though - David Gerard 23:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Involvement of the Unification movement

Last week I just started working with IIFWP, a non-profit foundation - part of the Unification movement which Rev. Sun Myung Moon leads - and they propose to incorporate the 500,000 articles of Wikipedia into a U-Wikipedia or SourceBook. Since I am the Unificationist whose had the most involvement with Wikipedia (and BTW the Wikipedian who has had the most involvement with the "Moonies"), I guess it's natural for me to be the bridge between the two groups. At least initially.

They have the money to hire editors and writers to sift through Wikipedia and identify the best of the best. They are also willing to share their own body of pre-written articles (some 4 or 5 thousand professionally-commissioned texts, although not all complete).

The first question I have is, well, really two questions:

1. How will their project help our goal of getting to 1.0?
2. Are there any ways in which it might interfere with getting to 1.0?

Now, they're not in any hurry - at least as Internet time goes. Their deadline is mid-2008.

On the other hand, any software they develop (if they stay with MediaWiki) will instantly become available to Wikipedia. They could get "Sifter" going for us. (Some kind of version-tagging scheme.)

They also need some help understanding the GPL and especially the GFDL. The FSF has offered to help explain the licenses to IIFWP's publishing department. I'm trying to set up a conference call early this week for this.

Okay, that's all I can think of now. Please tell me what you think! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this. The Unification Church is not exactly known for their dedication to NPOV. I'd be thrilled with their (or anyone's) organized help on relatively uncontroversial matters (grammar, consistency of footnoting style, creating software tools, etc.) but very wary of an organized involvement in more controversial matters from any institution with a political or religious agenda. I'd also have a concern that such an institution could swamp our consensus processes. They could certainly, if they chose, marshall a number of contributors that would overwhelm the current base. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

No disrespect is intended to the Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I've been in touch with Frank Kaufmann (on the Unif. side), as well as Jimbo, Angela and mav on the Wikipedia side.

If anything, it's more likely to involve a "fork" than an overwhelming injection of POV, for two reasons. (1) Any articles submitted from a vast "marshalling" of Unificationst writers would have no more effect than uploading the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannnica. Articles could be labelled Warning: Contains POV of the Unification Movement or something just as scary. (2) The U-pedia is primarily concerned with publishing its own version. The current idea being formulated is simply to follow the license agreement and "offer" (or "return"?) any changed versions of a Wikipedia article. Whether this means uploading it to wikipedia.org or just providing a link (on their server and/or ours) is easily arranged.

They don't want to publish "Wikipedia", in any case. This is not a request to use the Wikipedia logo, nor an offer to be "Wikipedia's publisher" (although I seem to recall I thought of it a bit that way at first).

Dr. Kaufmann wants to do this in a cooperative fashion that shows proper gratitude to the Wikipedia community for having developed all these articles. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's great! I have followed this on wikiEN-l and I think it can only be great for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is currently structured in such a way that any infusion of good faith energy and funding is helpful. Particularly toward 1.0, we need programming efforts that may take a little bit of financial wheel-greasing. Hurrah. Hurrah. Hurrah, Uncle Ed! Tom Haws 23:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I met yesterday with the key staff of the SourceBook project. They envision a staff of 6 editors, each with an assistant. I don't think this will swamp our consensus processes. Mostly they'd be identifying good Wikipedia articles and whipping them into shape for publication (and then donating ONE final draft back to Wikipedia). They will NOT be getting into edit wars, because their only concern about versions of articles is: Have they fulfilled their legal and moral obligation to return to Wikipedia after having recieved. (It's a sin in the Unification Church to take without giving.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

FYI on Article improvement drive

I've been nominating and working on core topics throught WP:AID. It's similar for the Collaboration of the Week A couple differences: articles are not stubs, and two articles are chosen each week. Maurreen 06:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Print edition of the Best of Wikipedia

For a while it has occurred to me that the featured article process is producing some really excellent articles. Surely we can find some publisher interested in publishing 'The Best of Wikipedia 2005/6'. It would be a fabulous advertisment for the Wikimedia projects and would bring in a fair amount of income I would have thought and many more contributors. It would also allow those people interested in a print version to work on articles that don't require much improvement for print, laying the ground work for later print efforts for poor countries. :ChrisG 17:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a very good idea.

But I think self-publishing (and possibly publishing-on-demand) should be considered. Maybe considered and rejected, but at least considered.

The advantage is little or no middleman. However it would be harder to get into bookstores. Maurreen 17:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also think this is a good idea, although I'm not convinced it would bring in that much income. — Matt Crypto 19:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Considering all of the silly joke / colemanballs / "Worlds silliest signs" books in the world, I can imagine that a print version of the "Best of BJAODN" may sell ;) - Estel (talk) 20:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think it could be very lucrative; because it will cost Wikipedia next to nothing to produce because we are volunteers. I think the self publishing route of the internet is a non-brainer especially if we can get publishing-on-demand. We could announce a publishing date and take advance orders. We would sell thousands just to Wikipedians, who want the first Wikipedia print release; and I'm sure we would sell far more widely than that group.

Getting books into the shops would be difficult via self-publishing; but we've got all the time in the world for that to develop. It might be better in the short term to use established publishers. We would be a great partner to any publisher not in the encyclopedia market, because the cost model is so good, we could undercut the price of any comparable products. :ChrisG 20:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikireader

Another option would be to basically make it the first English WikiReader, as it would not take a lot of work, and would be able to be published that way. *shrugs* But I love this idea. Heck, we can do one quickly for 2004, if we'd like to. Lyellin 16:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

So I've been thinking about this idea of a wikireader more:

1. We have a ready set of articles brought to a level we all tend to like. It's centrally located (there is a list), and already organized (by date), and would require a reasonably low level of editing.
2. Some kind of document might help to push this project/team forward a bit.
3. A Wikireader could provide some small amount of money to Wikimedia.
4. Piece of Information: Featured articles started in Mid Feb, 2004.
5. How would this be divided? a full year is 365 articles, 6 months would be around 180, and 3 months about 90. Divide it into threes, Jan-March, April-June, July-September, Oct-Decemeber?
6. How would it be published? Real publishing, using the established WR system, some other means?
7. Are some articles repeat featured?
8. Other things that would be needed in a WR on this... Cover image/design, end page, and Index, a Table of Contents, and probably an intro to WP and the WR/Featured article programs.
9. Also possible.... If using smaller time frames for each WR, a yearly or so index of all articles? a Topic index?
10. Perhaps use the smaller 3 month times as a test/online seller, and try to market a full year or 6 month edition to bookstores?
11. Need a title. Perhaps something like "The best of Wikipedia: Featured Articles, X through X" with X being months.
12. Could be tied to the e-mail list of people who are getting daily FA's somehow.

Those are the first thoughts I had when considering this project. Lyellin 04:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I like the Wikireader idea. Here's a couple of options:

1. Take all the featured articles.
2. Take the featured articles starting for a certain period, whenever we start. That way we'll know they haven't deteriorated. Maurreen 10:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taking all the featured articles should be feasible. I do not think it would be too demanding to review each of them to check the nature of changes since achieving featured status. --Theo (Talk) 16:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Might take a bit longer to review the earlier ones, but shouldn't be too bad overall. Lyellin 22:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Have any of us done a Wikireader before? I wonder how the process usually works. Maurreen 02:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

who needs experience..... Wikipedia:WikiReader/Best_of_Wikipedia_Feb-March_2004 ;) Lyellin 04:35, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

For those needing more reading, may I suggust m:wikireader. Also, as an update to the above link, I have now included each article that would be included for Feb/March 2004. As such, users can start certifiying they are up to our standards. If we get each one set, we can put this together. Lyellin 03:25, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lyellin, I think I'm with you in principle, but not sure about the details. My understanding is that we're talking about all the featured articles, is that right? If so, I don't understand starting with February 2004. Why don't we work off Wikipedia:Featured articles? But maybe I'm missing something. Maurreen 06:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here was my logic to that. FA's aren't added on the page in any given subject order. So let's say we do a "Politicians FA" guide, but then a bit later a new politician is added. We are already out of date. Now, there are already people recieveing each daily FA by e-mail, so the idea of showing FA's by time already exists. why Feb 04? Because that is when the archive of daily FA's start. If we break the year into 3 month bits (so we have decenly sized and not unwieldy readers), that's four a year. As long as we have 4 or 5 people actively working on checking/updating/approving articles, we can catch back up to the current list. That was my logic. Lyellin 14:40, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

A problem with starting that far back is that standards have been raised since then, especially with regard to referencing. Checking the list four? of the articles have been de-featured and given the gap in time and looking at the articles a number of others will probably be de-featured in the coming months. It would seem more productive to work on the articles that are have been currently featured; because any potential de-featuring is probably at least six months away and there should be minimal need to amend the article. :ChrisG 15:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My only issue with that is that if we are working with recently featured articles we have no good way to organize easily. If by date, how far back do we start with that is safe? By topic, it's ever changing. *shrugs* But you bring up a good point. I put a discussion question on the talk page of the reader as well. Lyellin 15:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Would starting at Jan. of this year be safe? Oct of 2004? I've not been involved with the FARC process at all. Lyellin 15:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would say that January 2005 would be safe. I participate to some extent with FAC and the new, higher standards really started in the autumn 2004, principally with the demand for proper referencing. No-one who is regularly involved in the process seems to be seriously advocating any new criteria. The only issue seems to be how strenously you should apply the new criteria to old featured articles. :ChrisG 15:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about one Wikireader for all of 2005?

For one thing, maybe as additions are made to the featured list, we could just "freeze" a copy for the Wikireader.

Also, I wonder if we are all have the same understanding of "featured article." Mine is that "featured articles" can include more than one per day; their status does not depend on what is featured on the main page. Maurreen 20:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's why I was thinking smaller ones first. First, if we were to do one for all of 2005, we would not publish for... 8 months. It's also a massive wikireader, most likly. If we do a shorter one (3 months), we can gain several advantages. First, we have something small and "manageable" to work with. We can also get a product out pretty quicker. It also confirms a bit more to the wikireader 5-10 US dollar range which seems to be the goal. It also let's us test it out on an audience, see what they like. A large, year long one seems like a compliation project of these smaller editions - perhaps marketable to bookstores, etc.

Now, the above assumes one is thinking about articles the way I am (what is featured on the main page). I think that's a better way for a few reasons. 1. easy organization already in place. 2. won't change day by day like a subject oriented FA list might 3. makes it very easy for us to "define" a set of articles to work on. Lyellin 21:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You have some good points.

The main thing holding me back is that, from the reader perspective, it seems like the compilation of topics would be random. And the distinction between Wikireaders in the series would not be meaningful. Most things based on a time period have more relation to that time period than this would.

Here are a few ideas for compromises, see what you think:

1. The "best of" the featured articles, the highest quality.
2. Most representative, meaningfully linked to, a given time period of at least a year.
3. Most popular.
4. Alphabetical order. (For instance, an "A" volume, and so on.)
5. Most important or core topics. Maurreen 22:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the key thing is to come up with a simple process that everyone can understand than has the minimum of difficulty. I notice that people are very quickly creating Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia articles because the process is so simple. If a good process is worked out then the people writing the featured articles will want to see their articles in the wikireader and they will do the basic work.

One suggestion would be to put the intended articles for the wikireader in a sub page of the main article. This would thus create a consistent naming structure.

Another would be not to choose which articles should go in, other than to say they are featured articles in 2005; and instead set a date for creating the wikireader and include any which are have been made ready.

Once you have this set of articles then decisions can be made about how to order them within the wikireader.

Most importantly we need a pilot article or few, i.e. render a featured article ready for conversion in open office, then convert it to PDF and then see what it looks like; and identify the difficulties with the process. What standards need to be followed to get a good result?

I'll look to installing open office on my PC in the next few days, and then see what can be done and I suggest anyone else interested should do the same.:ChrisG 10:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit Chris, on the process side I was just supposing going with the standard wikireader process, which boils down to. 1. assemble the wanted articles on one page. 2. have users approve for the standard level. 3. compile into any of the Wiki2PDF programs.\

I like your featured log comment below. I did not realize it was there. Perhaps we can choose a set of months to work with, and then order by large topic categories.

Two things that may be obvious, but I'll say anyway: I really think having a small project sooner is better. Also, I am of the camp that a lot of things on wiki die or lose energy because of too much pre-discussion, which is why I jumped ahead and used the already reasonably established wikireader model.

On the pilot article.... This isn't that hard, and really could be a last step issue, depending on how we go about doing it. The reason I say that is most of the programs we've already identified the problems. Open office itself should be fine for just about everything. (it's on my computer now, but I have yet to start playing with it -Finals for the next week). One thing I like from the two other WR's I've worked on is having various progress reports of the WR with a copy of the latest build of it inb PDF. Good to see.

I would just urge everyone to see the benefit of doing a smaller one, and one that is tied to something so it won't need to be constantly updated (IE Time, or some other item).Lyellin 14:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Featured Log

It would be probably be most sensible to choose articles from the Featured Log. And more specifically the articles in 2005, because they are of better quality to begin with:

• January 2005 - 24 articles promoted.
• February 2005 - 37 articles promoted.
• March 2005 - 46 articles promoted.
• April 2005 articles are in the main featured log. Currently 26 have been approved so far this month. :ChrisG 10:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

so, any further thoughts on the above, combined with the wikireader discussion? Lyellin 02:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm back...

Hi! I was a member of this project for a short while in January, and then life just got too busy for me to really keep up. Anyway, I'm back (for now) and ready to get going again.

I've skimmed most of the discussion that has taken place since January, but I have a question: Is there a list, a definitive list, of articles that will go into this hard copy Encyclopedia? And is there a discussion page for debating whether or not certain articles are 1.0 worthy?*Kat* 05:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back.

1. Not as far as I know.
2. Not that I know of.

I've been working a little via Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive on collaborating on core articles. Maurreen 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Way this is currently done

I think the way things are done currently for this project cannot work. There is just no way we can democratically select individual articles with a lenghty comment period for something like this. The project has been ongoing for almost a year and going no where, with a few dozens articles done every month, it would take years to get to a decent number. What needs to be done is select a range of topics, vote on that, and then include everything that falls into them, having a team of people check them out one by one to make sure a set of standards are applied (no grammatical error, no PoV information, no fair-use or worse images, etc) and then freeze that particular version for the DVD/book. Elfguy 17:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 00:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)