Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is the archive of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team from late August 2006. Please don't add to discussions here.

Contents

Wikisort software suggestion

I think it would be easier to use a bot + a script. The script would create a "rate" tab on each article and post the rating to a user subpage. The bot would look at the ratings on the user subpage and get the final rating somehow. This way, we don't have to wait for the developers to make changes to the software because the bot can be run by one user and the scripts can be posted on the scripts page. We could make the script more well known by posting it on the village pump. The bot doesn't need to be well known because only a single user has to run it. I posted this on the Wikisort discussion page too. Eyu100 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The script (untested, requires addTab):

function write_to_ratings_page() {

document.ca-edit.click();
document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value + "(" + quality + " and " + importance + " and " + pagename + ")";
document.editform.wpSummary.value = "Added rating";
document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = true;
document.editform.submit();

}

function get_rating() { var quality=prompt("Please enter a quality rating from 1 to 6, 1 is stub, 6 is FA","") var importance=prompt("Please enter an importance rating from 1 to 4, 1 is low, 4 is top","") }

function rate() {

  get_rating();
  document.ca-cumbersome_tab.click();
  write_to_ratings_page();

}

addOnloadHook(

function() { 
  var pagename=getPname();
  addTab("javascript:rate()", "rate", "ca-rate", "Rate this page", "");
  addTab("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eyu100/Bot_area", "DO NOT CLICK THIS", "ca-cumbersome_tab", "PLEASE _DON'T_ CLICK THIS", "");
}

);

Sorry your note has been ignored. But this is too technical for me. Maurreen 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Work remaining for version 0.5

We are now close to the ending of general nominations for Version 0.5 on August 31, 2006. However, a lot remains to be done before we publish (October/November?), and the outstanding tasks are summarised below. I have probably left out a few things, please feel free to add them. Some questions also need to be answered. I am posting this here rather than just at V0.5, because this may well involve people who have not worked with Version 0.5 as yet. The work falls into two main categories, (A) completion of the ongoing article selection and (B) pre-publication work. For (B) I propose that we set up a Publication task force in the next week or so to work on the following:

pre-publication work

  1. How should we publish this? As I understand it, the Torrent folks are ready to make downloads available as soon as we have our compilation together. We can presumably make other downloads available too. The main purpose of V0.5 was to test the process, so we could make it a small private CD release if we wanted (see no. 2!), running off a few hundred CDs is not an expensive job. I would argue, though, that we should also pilot the publication process by finding a publisher interested in working with us for Version 1.0 etc. They might well want to test the waters themselves, so they may like V0.5. In that case we need to
  2. Find a publisher. We had a publisher slightly interested last year, but alas that has evaporated. Webaroo (see earlier post on this page) seems like mainly software, not content. Any suggestions? The Poles and Germans found a natural fit with companies specialising in books & CDs on computer-related topics. I'm making a few phone calls myself.
  3. Get the final format agreed upon, then ready for publication. What do we want as a "front end" - should we use the SOS CD front end? Can we use something from the German or Polish WP1.0, or use Emmanuel's software being prepared for the French V1.0? Or should we look at Webaroo?
  4. We also need format the articles for offline release. This involves running scripts to turn redlinks into plain text, organising pictures, etc.
  5. Copyright work - the copyright tags on all pictures will need to be checked. I would propose getting the publisher to do that, they would probably want to do that anyway.
  6. How do we make sure that people can find the articles? We can have categories, but we'll also want some redirects and lists. In the article selection, we've often tried to add in a suitable list to match the set of articles.

What do people think of this? Should we set up a task force? Walkerma 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • A few comments, point by point:
    1. The method of publication depends on the exact size of the release; we can probably get away with a hacked, full-featured but read-only version of MediaWiki with 1,500 articles, but we would need for someone to create some sort of installer that puts PHP, MySQL, MediaWiki, and perhaps Apache on a CD, and a database import with the full edit history of the selected articles (to comply with the GFDL). However, this will probably won't scale for 1.0, so we may want to find a way to get dedicated reader software. Should it be a CD or a DVD?
I don't think you need to do this (and people won't like an installer) . you should go for a version which only requires a browser like WPCD did. That was 2000 articles and took 180M so you could get 5000 on a CD IF (like WPCD) you settle for thumbnails only for the images.--BozMo talk 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. We can certainly try Lulu Press or something similar, like it was done for Wikijunior Big Cats,[1] but please run that by the Static Content subcommittee first. We had a huge discussion about the Wikijunior as it was done by an individual, rather than the Foundation; we do not want to do the same "mistake" again. Ideally, contact Anthere about it, as she will likely be the one most interested in this. However, as you all know, the Board elections are coming, so that should be done sooner than later.
If the board want to get involved they have to shorten the current one year plus response times --BozMo talk 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
eh :-) I certainly would not recommand having the whole stuff approved by the board. For two main reasons. One is slowliness from the board. The second is that it is very important that we avoid setting up a default process where any reuse of content, or any printing of content has to be approved by the board, or by the Foundation. I think that was the sense of the comment made above. It is best to contact the special project committee for three reasons. One is that we need to ensure that we do not have several similar initiatives ongoing, meeting similar problems and each trying to solve it. In this sense, I think it is best we somehow find a place where we can pool experiences. Second, we may (or may not) have "contact" with poeple who could help ease the problems you are meeting; Maybe technical issues, maybe publishing issues etc... Third, it is best to know, at least the first time, exactly where legal issues stand. Imho Anthere
    1. I don't have any preference for the front end, but am concerned with how the back end would work more.
    2. This would be something done by the publisher, agreed, but we should decide whether we are going to use fair use pictures or not. A list of problematic tags is available at Wikimedia and Mandriva on Meta.
    3. I have no clue about the redirects. We can use MediaWiki's built-in search function (it is going to be a static version, so there's no need to worry about purging searchindex tables), but we always have Special:Prefixindex and Special:Allpages, which can be used a bit creatively to provide an alphabetical index.
  • That's just a few thoughts... Titoxd(?!?) 06:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Other thoughts:

  • Don't forget Pediapress for printing.
  • We should meet to talk about this and other developments this coming week. Are Wed or Thurs evenings (EST) good for you? I believe Titoxd posed the same question more completely elsewhere.
  • Scriptwriting is a big part of this; getting a team of a few writers who can work together will greatly help stick to a timeline. +sj + 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Pediapress (pediapressDOTcom/)does indeed look very interesting, thanks for that! Either Wed or Thur night is good for me. As for scripts, can't we base this on User:BozMo's scripts from the SOS CD? I think he would be happy to fix shortcomings in those scripts as he is planning a new release of the SOS CD later this year. Thanks, Walkerma 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thursday night is probably best for me (although my schedule this week is quite unpredictable, so I don't know if I'll be able to make it anyways). I recall that the pediapress site had some issue with css in templates when I last looked at it; I'll have to see if they're still present. Kirill Lokshin 04:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to be around when you are talking about such issues; Alas, I am away on wenesday. Might be back on time for thursday. I'll check in case I am back early enough. Anthere

Hi,

I work for Wikimedia France to put the french Wikipedia (or a part of it) on a DVD. I'm software developer , and have done two things :

  • a good looking HTML dump of the whole french Wikipedia. (http://sd-2812.dedibox.fr/static/)
  • A prototype of an offline-reader software, portable, with search engine, showing the HTML dump pages (xulrunner + xapian) .

I made a demonstration of both to Walkerman during Wikimania.

I propose myself to do the static HTML static dump. But for that I need an access of the english Wikipedia database, because the database is very very big (with the whole history) and I will be difficult to replicate it. I hope this problem will be discussed next week end, during the meeting.

My software has to be a little bit reworked to be usable, but it does I think what you need :

  • Good looking articles
  • Search engine feature (full text).

I'm now moving to a new country (Zürich - Suisse) ; so I will not be able to invest much time during september. But in any case the whole thing can be done for the end of november, probably october.

Kelson 10:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Misc. comments

I agree with considering the publish-on-demand model, such as Lulu or maybe Cafe Press. I don't think I have any objection to any of the above. Maurreen 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Completing the article selection

As for finishing up the article selection, I see things this way:

  1. Version 0.5 won't be a perfect balance of topics, but we should try and cover the basics, then go deeper on certain subjects covered well in FAs.
  2. Nominations close soon, but members of the review team need to be able to review and add more articles.
  3. As I mentioned previously here, we need to balance things out better - we have a lot of FAs on relatively obscure topics, and fewer articles on on core topics and vital articles. We need to review Core Topics and VAs, as well as countries/places, plus any other high-importance topics or sets of topics we should include (set noms are very useful ways to add in a lot!). I'd like to set up a new page called Wikipedia:Version 0.5/Missing articles where we could cross off articles as we review them. Fortunately Maurreen has given us this list as a starting point. I would also like to consider the top 200 biographies as top priority for us to include, this is a new list since we started V0.5 but it's extremely valuable.
  4. I propose we do this work through the existing V0.5 infrastructure (after adding the new Missing Articles page) and aim to finish reviewing on 30 September. We have a few more sections of FAs to cover, plus the re-balancing that I mentioned. It sounds a lot, but I think we'll reach 1000 reviewed by month's end. Is this date OK?

Other points

I (Walkerma) have a record number of organic chem students to teach this fall (~60), starting Monday, and I'm up for tenure next spring, so I will not be able to put in loads of hours once the semester takes hold (Sept is usually a bit lighter). I will be able to check in most days, but often I will have to rely on my colleagues here to keep things pushing forward. This project languished for years, so if we produce even a small CD of 1400 articles we can feel proud that we have finally broken through. And once we've done it once, it'll be easier next time - and with project article assessments pouring in (around 6000 new ones added last night alone!) we may be able to set up new ways of selecting articles - but that's for another discussion. Please (if you've read this far!) give your specific thoughts on whether we should set up a publication team/taskforce, the timing, along with other ideas or answers to my questions. Thanks for all your work so far! Walkerma 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say our highest priority at this point would be to drag the keisters of the German and Polish editors who were responsible for their releases for help... ;). They, as well as a few members from SPC, can (should?) oversee this work, with of course all of us doing the same thing. Whether we consider it a task force or a different name is a different subject. :P Overall, we need more hands to do the few things that remain to be done. Titoxd(?!?) 06:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, getting the other languages and the SPC involved is probably needed. We can wrap up assessments here, but if we're planning to do anything more sophisticated than a downloadable release, we'll need to find an actual publisher.
One other point to consider: Anthere noted at Wikimania that trying to publish any BLP articles was likely to be an extremely bad idea from a legal standpoint, so it may be necessary to strip those out of the 0.5 lists even if they've been approved. Kirill Lokshin 19:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of SPC, Sj has asked me if we can have a meeting on IRC with the Static Content Subcommittee this week. When would it be ideal for everyone? Titoxd(?!?) 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the meeting last night (UTC). Ideal for me would be any evening EST this week (apart from Sunday), i.e., around 00:01 till 06:00 UTC. If we're going to talk with Europeans, though, we probably have to do this earlier in the day - Tuesday is a very good day for me any time, and Friday is mostly open after 18:00 UTC. In the meantime I'll try to contact (via Wikipedia) Anthere (Board), Polimerik (pl), Mathias Schindler (de) and Emmanuel (Kelson) (fr). Please feel free to contact other people you know. One problem with meta is that it seems dead most of the time, including the Static Content talk, but hopefully we can wake it up for this. Walkerma 01:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should join this: meta:Talk:Special_projects_committee#September_3_2006.2C_2000_UTC Polimerek 10:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll be there :-) Anthere

Have automated user ratings finally arrived???

Folks here might enjoy this - is it a first for us? Seriously, it's good to get feedback like this - sadly I agree with it (though I reverted it for the bot's sake). Walkerma 03:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


other thoughts

You are right about navigation being very important (we need more), but I think you also need to look at the section exclude suggestions I made. SOS have some volunteers lined up for Oct to do the next revision (which will be 500- articles and inevitably include all of the ones you have approved by then): I am happy to run the same script on 0.5 and both post and zip it up somewhere for you to look at and think about. That should as least make the remaining wish list easier. We have got a couple of possible publishers in dialogue for our next version: I guess we would converge at that point. --BozMo talk 19:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish DVD

I was asked by Walkerma to write something. Our approach is quite different. We have started from the other side - by looking for a company to work with. We are going to publish a Polish Wikipedia "as is" just by removing obvious general knowlege mistakes, POV and copyright violations, but without selecting articles or serious changing its content. IMHO the choice of company should be based on its ability to accept GNU FDL licence and power of distribution and marketing. We have just choosen a Polish company which is strong on local market - it is able to distribute and advertise their product all over the country. I guess in case of English Wikipedia it is more tricky. The best choice should be a company able to distribute the CD/DVD in all English spoken countries, or you may cooperate with several companies - one by each country? Polimerek 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikicharts

People here (and in the WikiProjects) will be very interested to hear that there is now a list available showing the most viewed articles (top 100). Of course I'm disappointed that cannabis (drug) is the only chemistry article (#86) other than periodic table (#19), whereas list of gay porn stars made #4. Maybe core topics should have more sex articles in it??!! This list will be very useful, though, particularly if we can get it expanded to a top 1000 like this old list. Walkerma 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but... where is this new list? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Basis for inclusion in WP1.0

Can anyone tell me what the presumed standard for inclusion in 1.0 is, preferably in terms of the assessment classes? Aside from the implied "improve article to next rung in the assessment ladder", it's not at all clear how the different article classes are "actioned" in any meaningfully distinct way. Alai 16:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In practical terms, articles at the "B-Class" level have been regularly included in 0.5; and I think (though I may be mistaken here) that some "Start-Class" articles on particularly important topics have also made it in. It's a bit too early to give a definitive answer beyond that, though.
(And we shouldn't underestimate the benefits of the "improve article to next rung in the assessment ladder" approach, either!) Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not too early as it effects the design of the assessment system, and the seemingly-consequently mass-tagging of hundreds of thousands of articles, however. If the threshold is going to be B-Class+special-pleading, then for inclusion purposes, the distinctions "above" B-class, and between start-class and stub-class are effectively moot. I don't seek to downplay the effects of the "rung" aspect, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone announces their 1FA+3ACA+10+GA+30BCA adminship standard, but several of these exist independently of this project, and it's not clear to me that simply multiplying the number of classes increases any such benefit in and of itself. Furthermore, if it's orthogonal to the "include or exclude", or "improve to the point of being includible" purposes of this project, which I'd assume it's fundamentally about (if it's not ultimately just assessment for assessment's sake), then the more energy spent on the one, then necessarily the less spent on the other. Alai 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There's two different perspectives here, though. The 1.0 project is generally concerned with the include/exclude distinction, but it's basically getting a free ride from the WikiProjects, which are concerned more with a generalized assessment scheme than with any particular cutoff. Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
My main concern is with the "stub-class articles"; these seem to be the least useful "assessments", especially if done automatically, as they'd have to make it all the way to at least B-class (and/or be core topics) to be in danger of inclusion, and yet are responsible for the huge preponderance of such "assessments", which are being done in such a way as to exactly duplicate their being tagged as stubs in the first place. (Over 100,000 such for the biographies alone already, and well over 500,000 (and still growing) if this is carried out for every possible article currently tagged as a stub. Wouldn't it be better to, if not get rid of this article class entirely (which I'd personally favour) then to only make it the practice to only tag them as such where there's some independent need to? e.g. a core topic that's a currently a stub, and is therefore a WP1.0-identified urgent case for expansion, or an article that's not tagged as a stub, but that would be a stub-class article for some reason or another (that largely eludes me, I must admit). Simply mass-tagging all "stubs" as being "stub-class articles" seems to be logically redundant, and to introduce a maintenance overhead and and consistency issue, while imposing an additional labour, server load, database size and cognitive burden (talk pages turning "blue" for no meaningful reason). Alai 18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's try to take this from the top, then: (I wonder if we need to make a FAQ about this...)
  • The talk page templates will continue to be applied regardless of whether there's an assessment associated with them at the time; they're far too useful in other ways. (See this attempt to stop the tagging; it was shouted down with extreme speed.)
  • If we do not assess stubs, we're left with a vast pool of "unassessed" articles which may be either (a) stubs or (b) not stubs, but actually unassessed. The only way to separate these two (so that the unassessed ones can get their assessments) is, coincidentally, to tag the stubs explicitly—which brings us back to where we started.
  • Because the assessments are done on a per-WikiProject basis, they often differ in scope from various stub types, and are not subject to the same regulations. (I think we ought to stop beating this particular deceased equine at this point.)
  • The assessments provide significant benefits beyond the functionality of stub tags, such as the automatic generation of statistics and logs of tag addition, removal, and changes.
There is, in short, nothing to be gained in practical terms by quibbling over the distinction between stub tags and stub assessments. While the two are similar in that they both identify "stubs", their structure and operation is sufficiently different to make both worthwhile.
(I am also rather concerned that you're misrepresenting the biography tagging; the ~100,000 entries were tagged on the basis of being in Category:Living people, and their selection has absolutely nothing to do with their being—or not being—stubs.) Kirill Lokshin 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
From my perspective, I think that in future release versions of Wikipedia 0.X, 1.0 and beyond, we will need to use many B-Class articles in order to get the coverage we need (assuming we want to expand to 10-20,000 articles). Maurreen (who was tentatively signed up to oversee version 1.0) may disagree, but in one of her recent comments she said, "On later releases, or editions, I would suggest using importance as the primary factor, or baseline list to work from, over quality." I'm moving in that direction too, so in the next version I expect:
  • Any B-Class article on an important subject will probably make it in.
  • Any Start-Class article needed to complete a set will probably make it in, or on a really major topic, but in general most Start-Class articles will not be included. See Rivers for an example likely to be in V0.5- no one has yet suggested removing the Yellow River from the list (note that there is a geography emphasis in V0.5).
The result of that will mean: Start means the project can fairly easily get up to B (to get an important article into VX.X); Stub means a lot more work is needed to get it to B. That will help a project decide which articles should be targeted first, based on their priorities.
I think WikiProjects are mainly doing this work because it helps them organise things - getting onto the offline releases is not their top priority. I also agree with Kirill's logic in his argument above. Hope this helps, Walkerma 21:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional input, Walkerma. I think it would be worthwhile putting to the wikiprojects in those terms, or at any rate saying this explicitly on this project's "front page", rather than creating the expectation that the WP1.0 Six Point Plan is an objective unto itself, which seems to be the basis on which these mass-tagging exercises are being organised. ("WP1.0 says these classes exist, therefore there must be categories for them; these categories exist, therefore have to be filled out, by bot as necessary.") If they want to go ahead with categorising everything in sight regardless, then so be it. Focussing on the "important" topics, and on the quality threshold required for those articles, should result in more activity in the desired direction, as opposed to effort being expended on articles unlikely to make it in, in any event. (It also seems to me unclear what value the additional level of A-class is, but that's another matter, and not really my immediate concern.) Alai 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, we should probably put something more about this on the main page. When this scheme got going about 4 months ago it was simply one sub-project of one sub-project of WP:1.0, overseen by about 3 people! We can really only make things really specific once we have agreed on specifications for WP1.0, something we'll discuss once article selection for version 0.5 is complete (Sep 30). Although I don't foresee any great disagreement, what I outlined above is merely my opinion on where things are going. It's worth emphasising that many projects find assessment a useful exercise; this particular scheme was in use in WP:Chem long before we "stole" it for WP1.0, and several projects had assessment worklists before the bot came along, indeed before WP1.0 adopted assessment. BTW, the term A-Class also predates Good Articles, and although they are quite similar (at least these days) in quality, it remains a great way for us to tag an article that isn't a GA but probably could be, or isn't quite an FA but could be an FAC with a bit of cleanup. Walkerma 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps include a pointer on the front page to an explicit proposal/working document along those lines, then, if it's not quite set in concrete. If people are going to act on these basis of these existing -- and seemingly they are -- the more clarity about what's at least being suggested, and the different outworking of its purpose, the better. I've no quarrel with the talk-page-categories-as-worklists as a concept, though I have extreme doubts that what works for WP:CHEM will in any way scale to the biographies en masse (though that's largely their business). Also note that CFD can be extremely capricious these days about "we're going to delete this maintenance category because we think it 'looks unprofessional', never mind its utility -- just look at the farago around the CFD of Cat:Articles lacking sources, before it was put back by WP:DRV, with a loud collective "duuuh". For that sort of reason, the more established the basis of "we need X for reason Y", the better. I realize that the six-point-scale predates WPx.y (though I was unaware that ACAs came along before GAs; must just have a "lower profile"). If people are happy to regard it as an internal management tool, without any expectation that this is mandated by WP1.0, or even necessarily going to be used by it, then that's fair enough. Alai 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea, I'll work on it in the next few days. Walkerma 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think it is premature to add anything about quality ratings to the overall project page, outside of the "Work via Wikiprojects" section. I think some disparate elements are getting mixed up in the discussion above.

Alai's question and the ensuring discussion are not entirely clear to me.

The original question was "Can anyone tell me what the presumed standard for inclusion in 1.0 is, preferably in terms of the assessment classes?"

But I'm not sure whether Alai intended to ask specifically about "1.0", release versions in general, or actually 0.5, the version planned for release this fall (not to mention Bozmo's work). I'm also not sure whether Alai is asking more about whatever release version or the ratings themselves.

The basis for inclusion in 0.5 can generally be found at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations. More information about criteria is here, for both 0.5 and 1.0. The previous plan for 1.0 is suspended, for reasons noted at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Nominations#Status and options. We might have one or more versions between 0.5 and 1.0.

As far as I know, in the great majority of case, the quality ratings have at least generally been handled by wikiprojects that choose to use them. Emphasis on them would make a bias toward subjects covered by those projects. Also, a good number of those ratings have been applied after fairly only cursory review. Maurreen 07:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Publisher

Just for reference, because I am not sure it will lead anywhere yet, nor sure they would be interested selling or publishing english content yet. In september, I will have a meeting with a big big company, which cumulate several types of activities, DVD sales included. Beginning this week end probably, I'll start preparing this meeting and to see if there is anything I can show them from the version 0.5. Can you point out to me to one of the nicest (most complete, very descriptive) part of the version 0.5 ? Anthere

Exciting news! Please keep us updated! We don't have a really nice write-up to show you - maybe I should work on that. Our main listing is here, though the top level categories got changed to an unorthodox system and no one has had time to switch it back (see [[WP:V0.5N for our "orthodox" categorisation). We are aware that content is a bit unbalanced at present, both in general (e.g., weak on politics, stronger on pop music) and even within specific subjects (for example, we have included Ann Arbor, Michigan but not Los Angeles). We hope to try and fix that during September - we won't succeed completely, but remember this is only really an alpha test. We also made the decision that certain articles might be used to showcase FAs on significant but not top-importance topics. I predict that we'll get 1500 articles in place by September 30. Walkerma 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-publishing and publish-on-demand

I would like to suggest that we strongly consider self-publishing and "publish-on-demand", such as Lulu.com or Cafe Press. For one thing, doing so would allow us to maintain more control; it would be more wiki-like. I also have some doubt about the response of a standard publisher to our 0.5, etc. For instance, if someone is interested in whatever we have to offer, they don't need to offer us anything in return. They don't need to anything but uphold the GFDL. I can elaborate on any of this if anyone is interested. If we publish it ourselves, any proceeds could go to the foundation. Maurreen 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they would need to offer us something in return, at least if they wish to use the Wikipedia name for whatever they publish (and not doing so would be rather silly; how many of them really want to brand their own encyclopedia?). Kirill Lokshin 09:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill... if they use "Wikipedia", a registered trademark, then they need to perhaps contact Brad in Tampa about it. I don't eliminate the opinion, but there's some legal issues to deal with here. Titoxd(?!?) 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about the WikiProject full article list

I was wondering how closely this list has been/will be followed for consideration of including articles in 1.0. I ask because it was back in February when the WikiProjects were contacted, and it's been quite some time since then. As I had just joined WikiProject Final Fantasy around that same time, I hadn't yet got to work on improving articles very much and didn't contribute to the suggestions that the WikiProject offered. Since then, however, myself and a few others on the project have put a lot of work into several of our articles. Currently, two of our articles listed on the WikiProject full article list are FAs (though it only shows one FA and one FL; both Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy X are now FAs), and several more of the project's articles have since become FAs.

I guess what I'm asking is "How closely will this list be followed?" and "May I update my WikiProject's suggestions on the list if it will be followed closely?" We have five FAs now, and if we were to be asked today which articles we would like to have considered for inclusion in 1.0, those would be the ones we'd suggest. By the way, I'm not sure if this is considered important or not, but three of these five articles (Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy VII) have been reviewed by Wikipedia:Version 0.5 and selected. The other two (Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X-2) probably won't be reviewed before nominations end. Ryu Kaze 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is, please see my note at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team #Arbitrary_break. Maurreen 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm going to work up either a set of FAQs or an update to the main page or both. This team has always consisted of multiple simultaneous subprojects. It now seems that some of that needs clarification.
And I think the name of the overall project is slightly confusing. For example, it might make people think that our first release is to be 1.0. But we haven't figured out a name that would be better.
I confess that the name is my fault. I think I should have originally named this "Release Version ..." instead of Version 1.0 ..." Maurreen 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So I guess your answer is pretty much "We need to take a step back and analyze our position before deciding anything else"? If so, I'll take that. I guess it's the best answer at the moment given the circumstances. Thanks. Ryu Kaze 20:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The full article list is rather outdated now - the number of projects has exploded since it was written, and we are revamping the broad categories too. For most of the summer I have been trying to keep things going at WP:WVWP (which oversees that page) all by myself (as well as coordinating Version 0.5), so the project has obviously got out-of-date in some areas. I have managed to update the Arts, Philosophy and Religion, but the others are still outdated. We attack the listing from several directions - for example we review GA and FA tags and listings, so all the FF FAs are being considered from that perspective. Before we put together the listing for a full release I think we will make sure all the projects have had a recent contact and their tables are reasonably current. Please help us with that if you have the time, and please update the FF table here. Meanwhile, the "wait & see" answer you gave will apply for the next few months, I think. Walkerma 03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the expanded response. Sounds like you've been taking on a lot. If I get the time, I'll try to help out with contacting the WikiProjects for updates. Ryu Kaze 14:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC Meetings: Friday night for en and Sunday (probably) on meta

You will need a IRC reader like ChatZilla, but even I managed to get it to work, so it must be really easy. NOW THE MEETING HAS BEEN CHANGED TO FRIDAY.

Discussion on English WP1.0, especially WP0.5

Held at 8pm EST on FRIDAY 1st Sept (I think that's 00:00 Sat 1st UTC?) on #wikipedia-static. Please sign up here if you plan to attend. NOTE - now on #static not #stable. Walkerma 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (Can also do Friday)

Thursday is bad for me... any chance of pushing it to Friday? Titoxd(?!?) 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I can probably make it; but I have no objections to moving it to Friday either. Was Thursday something that sj needed? (Yes, but I'll email him - MAW)
(And, incidentally, should the "UTC" above be "IRC" instead?) Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (Yes! Too many acronyms! MAW)
(Sj says, "See you then (Fri 8pm) on freenode!")

General meeting of the Wikimedia Special Projects Committee

Held at 20:00 UTC, probably on Sunday. This meeting will cover several topics, of which WP1.0 issues will just form one part. Keep track of things on meta here. Sign up on that meta page if you plan to attend. Walkerma 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Meeting notes

That was a little confusing. But -- Any deal with a publisher would need to go through Brad Patrick. This is fuzzy, but an official endorsed version is unlikely, because of liability concerns, but there is possibility of making a deal to use the trademark. Another option is using self-publishing, as long as there is no assertion that it is official, as long as the trademark is not used, the name is not too big. Maurreen 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! After two hours on the first 3 items, I assumed that we wouldn't have time to reach #8, so I left! We'll talk again on #static next Sunday at 4pm EST, then. Walkerma 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Scheduling future meetings

Maybe it would be good for those of us interested to indicate here any particular days or times that are good or bad for scheduling meetings. Maurreen 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maurreen -- Weekday evenings are bad for me. Maurreen 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Walkerma -- Weekday daytimes are bad for me, except for Tuesdays. Walkerma 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd -- Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday evenings are bad for me. Titoxd(?!?) 08:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Meeting where? In real or in IRC for example? I'm a bit far from you guys. :) NCurse work 08:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's on IRC, not in person. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 09:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin -- Weekday daytimes are bad for me. Kirill Lokshin 09:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

NCurse -- weekend evenings/nights are perfect for me. NCurse work 09:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dna-Dennis -- Almost anytime. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 23:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh?!?!

Is someone gonna buy a release????? Who's going to buy a release when its done?!?!!! Whose going to fund the publication?!?!/etc...!!!?! Please repond on my talk page, thanks!100110100 03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/r/Wikipedia_talk%7EVersion_1.0_Editorial_Team_Archive_12_12a9.html"