Wikipedia talk:Pushing to 1.0/Archive 2

Environmental issues
I haven't voted on the suggestion that recycled materials be used, because I'm afraid we'd need to defer consideration of such specifics until we're closer to having the content ready. I endorse the concept, though. My vote is "At the appropriate time, investigate the production options then available and consider environmental impacts as one important factor in making a choice." JamesMLane 20:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goals
Putting stuff into numbers makes more sense (example):

Wikipedia 1.0 will be complete when all the following requirements are met: 500000 Total Articles 1000 Featured Articles 30% of Articles Containing at least 2KB of text 9 Average Edits Per Page

What's happening
This page seems to suggest that we have been "Pushing To 1.0" for over a year, but have made no discernable progress. What is happening to this project? Adam 06:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I dunno, but the original hypothetical date of "December 31st, 2004" is looking a little optimistic ;-) &mdash; Matt 16:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the progress might be viewed another way: Jimbo has suggested that the infrastructure that is currently in place (Categories, etc.) can get us to 1.0 (see above) Ancheta Wis 14:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Jimbo's comments now below :ChrisG 14:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Why paper?
20040302 asked: "Why paper?" The main reason is that a lot of people don't have computers. Maurreen 16:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous argument: it's like saying we shouldn't print books because some people can't read. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is an online encyclopaedia, with all the wonderful advantages that gives to editors and readers. What is the point of building an online encyclopaedia, a beautiful 21st century idea, and then trying to force it back into the shackles of 19th century technology?

What Wikipedia1.0 really needs to be is a subset of Wikipedia, a corpus of articles which are (a) comprehensive (b) certifiably accurate (c) fully referenced (d) properly proof-read and (e) protected against further editing without some good reason (ie, the facts have changed). Can we see some renewed progress towards this objective? Adam 01:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Eh? I'm not sure it's as ridiculous an argument as you make out. You suggest that it's like "saying we shouldn't print books because some people can't read"; this isn't a good analogy. If it was, the argument here would be "we shouldn't have an electronic Wikipedia because some people don't have computers". This is not the argument. The argument is "we could have a paper Wikipedia as well as an electronic Wikipedia in order that those people who do not have access to computers can benefit". Remember, people prefer books for all sorts of reasons, and people don't have access to computers for all sorts of reasons. &mdash; Matt 04:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If people want a paper encyclopaedia they will buy a Britannica. We are producing an online encyclopaedia, which is a qualitatively different and much better thing (and free, as well - will this proposed paper encyclopaedia be free?). We have a long way to go before we have done that properly, and we should do that before we think of trying to do something else. In any case, people who do not have computers can access Wikipedia at any library, school or cybercaf. Adam 05:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In response to your last comment, I'd note that a large part of the world's population is not within reach of a library, school or cybercafe that is equipped with computers. Moreover, a large part of the world does not have the infrastructure to support even basic IT. On a different point, I get the impression that you think of a paper version as a distraction that will suck resources and focus away from an imperfect online edition; am I understanding you correctly, and if so, why do you see it as such a distraction? &mdash; Matt 06:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I may be new at this, but I am pretty convinced that the whole point of wikipedia is that it is collaboratively and democratically created among a very large group of participants, and it just so happens that the internet is the easiest way to facilitate that collaboaration. Marc Mywords 09:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

On your first point, I suggest you travel a bit, as I have done recently, in relatively poor countries. You will see that virtually everyone who can read has some kind of access to the internet. I'm not talking about Somalia, but in middle-income countries such as Thailand there is now a cybercaf on every street corner. A free online encyclopaedia would be a godsend to people in such countries, who could never afford a paper encyclopaedia, but who could and would use a quality online one. In any case, to repeat my main point, an online encyclopaedia is vastly superior to paper ones. Wikipedia is already bigger than the Britannica, although of course nowhere near it terms of quality, and can go on getting bigger indefinitely, unrestricted by the physical and financial constraints of a paper encyclopaedia. Why should we waste our time on a 19th century medium when we have the ability to create the greatest, most flexible and most accessible repository of knowledge ever seen? Adam 07:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I do have some experience travelling in the third world, and indeed in cities there are opportunities to access the Internet, but, for example, within many parts of Africa, it's a challenge to get working electricity and phone services, let alone surf the Internet. And, believe me, surfing Wikipedia via dialup from an Iringa (Tanzania) Internet cafe is not vastly superior to anything! But yes, the main point. I don't dispute that an online encyclopedia has huge advantages over a paper encyclopedia. But for certain situations, paper has advantages; if it costs us little to consider a paper version, then why not? Do you think it would be such a huge drain of Wikipedia energy to consider it? &mdash; Matt 07:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If, say, a school in a poor country cannot afford internet access in some way, how could they afford a paper encyclopedia? And what would a paper version of Wikipedia bring that the existing paper encyclopedias do not? We have more depth and breadth because we have no size limits, but that advantage is lost with a paper version. On the other hand, the existing paper enccyclopedias have paid, professional editors who are known to do a good job. I can't see a paper Wikipedia taking sales off them. Dan100 12:08, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Facilitating the mailing of a book is much, much more feasible than facilitating the 1) purchase of computers at the school, 2) training the teachers there how to use them, 3) setting up internet access there, 4) purchasing internet service there Marc Mywords 09:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the discussion should not primarily be about "Paper vs. Online", but "Paper vs. CD-Rom". The Enyclopedias at our university library easily fill several shelves. If you are considering printing a Wikipedia of the size of Britannica (what Jimbo seemed to imply in some of his posts back in 2003), it might easily weigh around 50kg. So, in ways of shipping 5 PCs plus a CD could be an alternative option which deserves considering. Your points 1), 2), 3) are not completely wrong, but I guess you would have to consider synergies, or externalities, due to the fact that staff is receiving computer training. Computers and trained staff might be of some use to the community which goes far beyond the fact that they allow people to access the Wikipedia. --Krol:k 11:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is this an either/or discussion? Having paper will preclude having an online version? &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:11, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * It would not preclude having an online verson. The typical worry is that if too much wikitime is spent on a paper edition, the online will suffer. I tend to believe that the two work in tandem, so that loss is small, if any. Lyellin 04:34, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Publishing
I actually think the benefit of setting up a structured approach to Wikireaders and publishing is that a number of publishers would jump at the chance of getting such content. e.g. Wikipedia Countries of the World, Wikipedia SF Encyclopedia, Wikipedia Science, Wikipedia Space. Wikimedia would be able to get a lot of money taking a percentage of any sales in First World countries. Which could offset the costs of publishing free, or profit free copies, in the Third World. :ChrisG 14:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1. Wikireaders -- Chris, yes! This is sort of what I was trying to say on the Editorial Team page.
 * There are so many options.
 * The various Wikiprojects could put out Wikireaders. Enough of the right topics could be added together and make up much of what is needed to be relatively comprehensive.
 * There could be Wikireaders of the glossaries or reference tables.
 * Conceivably, 100 or "x" number of the right articles (topics) could make a mini or concise encyclopedia.


 * 2. Publishing -- We don't need to impress a publisher. There is such a thing as self-publishing, and such a thing as "publish-on-demand." See [lulu.com lulu] for an example. Maurreen 17:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It might also make sense in many cases not to use paper publication in the developing world. IT might be the better option; but that could be judged on a case by case basis. However, there would certainly be a lucrative market in the First World to provide a revenue stream for charitable purposes. :ChrisG 13:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Version 1.0 Editorial Team
I've been bold and created the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. You're all invited. :) Maurreen 08:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmmm
Frankly, Maurreen et al. I think you are starting at the wrong place. Have any publishers shown interest in taking on this project? What sort of protection is there regarding copyright infringement? How many volumes/pages/articles do you envision using in an offline variant? How will it be maintained? Suddenly a whole load of excellent WP editors will be involved in polishing and repolishing WP offline variants - which will detract from the main project.

If you are sure it is a good idea to go for an offline version, it may be better to set up a distinct wiki for that purpose. It is quite possible that the powers-that-be would be willing to hand over a history-culled clone as a starting point - which can then be culled to meet offline requirements.

However, to me the arguments for a paper WP are flimsy at best. Printed paper costs more than electrons - if we wish to get WP to third world countries, how about introducing WP cafes? It would cost about the same. Oh sorry, and just how many publishers distribute to the masai mara? At what cost? Who gets to pay? Also - the other arguments are weak. It's like saying we should have a carved rock version of WP - because carved rock doesn't burn, whereas paper does - and here there is a page for editors of the carved rock wikipedia -- Noble Editors of Carved Rock Wikipedia.

Funding - WP needs more funding just for WP, let alone an offline WP (based on the fact that WP decided against a publisher) - print costs, distribution. Or is this some great paper/pulp project just to burn more energy for no purpose whatsoever?

IMHO by the time that WP offline is ready, the issues concerning internet availability will not be there. Even Somalia has good telecoms and internet access, and it hasn't had a government in a decade. WP being free means there is no corruption, no bribes, no middlemen, no marketing, no trouble. It will always be easier for individuals to read WP online in Somalia than it will to buy a book/CD/etc.

Regardless, further up this page are 3 reasons given for having an offline WP. 1. Because they don't have Internet access. 2. Because using a book is quicker than waiting for their computer to boot 3. A version they can trust not to have been recently vandalized. Well, here are my answers to this. 1. Internet access is progressively becoming available to everyone globally, in case you hadn't noticed. By the time we get to WP-book, every country will have publically available internet access at cheap rates and with good bandwidth. Most first world countries now have free internet at public libraries. Try talking to a librarian about the rationale for putting WP onto a book format. 2. Most computers don't need booting anymore. Most individuals put their computer to sleep, and dialup is a dodo argument as DSL availability increases. By the time a nominal WP1 hit the shelves, it would be a year out of date, have less than 5% of the WP articles (going on the 75k article mention above), and will have cost someone a huge amount to produce - be subject to the most heinous copyright examination for it's entire life, and would have to be reworked just to keep it up to date. 3. Vandalism comes in two flavours. Easy vandalism - eg "BOB LOVES YOU" is worked around by most readers looking through the article history, or merely ignored. The second form of vandalism - deliberate bias / POV is deep and often reflects sociopolitical differences of opinion. Does maurreen et al. believe that one group of editors can 'rise above' the sociocultural biases that are necessary for a global publication? Such a cadre of editors smells of elitism at it's best. In one sense the only real way of being able to justify which articles should make it into an offline subset is to look at the 75,000 articles that have received most editorial attention and views. The very ones that have most edit wars, POV disputes, vandals (of both sorts), etc.

Ah ah.. Rant off. (20040302 13:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC))


 * In response to March 2, 2004's objections to point one: People who use cyber-cafes to get online in Third world countries pay by the hour for internet access. This is a bummer when trying to research a paper.  Having a computer at home with a DVD would make Wiki more convenient.  Also, people with computers at home often times don't have dial up access to the internet; either a house with one phone line everyone shares, or they're college students who can't justify the $10 a month (or more in 3rd world countries) that would cost.  To say "Oh, everyone who has a computer has a 'net connection" in insensitive to many people's situtation.  And, oh, a DVD is a good deal faster to read than the kind of 'net you get in many Third world countries.  Heck, said DVD is a good deal faster than Wikipedia from a OC-12 connection to the internet when it gets heavily loaded.  So, to say a DVD of Wiki has no value because "everyone has internet" is incorrect. Samboy 14:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Version numbers
If we use major.minor version numbers, how would we decide when to bump the major version number, and when to only change the minor? Goplat 20:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I figure we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Maurreen 06:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we should not jump to 1.0 - start out with 0.1, because 1.0 means it's a finished product, and WP is a work in progress. 134.117.137.157 21:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's proposal, Chicago Meetup, October 2004
This was copied from User talk:Jimbo Wales/Chicago Meetup. Maurreen 13:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) Ancheta Wis published the same message at the same time. Merged. :ChrisG 14:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * From the Chicago Meetup Oct 24, 2004: There were several questions about the CD/DVD version of Wikipedia which is to be published. In order to get to that stage, we need to pass the (publishable) articles through a quality procedure, at least at the level of not publishing vandalized articles etc. Jimbo publicly revealed his concepts for a prototype procedure for getting to this stage (ala version 1.0), the most important of which involves separate steps:
 * a preliminary statistical step which collects the consensus rating 0 to 3 of each article (0=VfD, 1=Cleanup, 2=usable, 3=Featured Article standard). This includes who gave the rating, revision status of the article, etc.
 * the actual vetting of each article.

The statistical step might include a Category on each publishable article (Category:QA_0=Delete, QA_1=Cleanup, QA_2=Publishable, QA_3=Featured Article quality). Jimbo emphasized that only a small number of grades (0-3) is feasible so that the results are not skewed. Given this, it is clear that the vast majority of articles are at stage 2 (i.e., they have not been marked for cleanup or deletion). If it were otherwise, we would see a lot more VfD's and Attention notices. The vetting stage could be accomplished the same way Your thoughts, Community? - Ancheta Wis


 * The fist part sounds like a good start to me. Should we bring this up on a suitable categories page, or announce the discussion of the categories widely? Or flesh it out more first?
 * I don't get the "QA" though. Maurreen 17:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, we might need a fourth category, for the articles that are so divisive or contentious that no agreed-upon version is expected in the near future. Maurreen 17:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think cleanup is considered appropriate for those contentious articles. The fourth category implied is actually those articles that have not been validated because no-one considers it worth the bother, i.e. stubs and substubs. :ChrisG 13:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)