Talk:Internet encyclopedia project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the class scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] UNUMP?
The most profound output of these might be the early proposals, especially from the UNU MP in 1993, to filter the material for religious and ethical alignments that might make it easier to manage the divergence of values in any global project.
What does "UNU MP" refer to in this article? Catherine 02:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- "United Nations University Millennium Project", I believe, I'll fix the article. -- Stephen Gilbert 16:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Answers.com
Shouldn't Answers.com also be included in this article, perhaps the online only section? Some of the material comes from wikipedia, but not all of it, making it a viable Encyclopedia.
[edit] Digitizing
When the article mentions digitizing printed work, I think it should mention that Britannica used to be only paper (not digital); but now, it has been digitized and can either be viewed online for a price or purchased for an offline version. Would this be an example of digitizing? This is assuming that the material was originally taken from the printed versions; I see no reason why Britannica wouldn't digitize their own printed work. The same may apply to Encarta, as I think they may have had a printed version as well and digitized it into a website and offline software.
- Well, the CD-ROM (and online) Encyclopedia Britannica is certainly a good point - I seem to remember the first releases getting lukewarm reviews for having not much beyond the (admittedly, 30 odd volumes worth) of digitized text. Encarta is a little more complicated - it was actually started from Microsoft, so there wasn't a print version of "Encarta" per se; on the other hand, they didn't go out and reasearch a whole encyclopedia from scratch either, getting much of the early material from Funk and Wagnalls. But that's straying a bit from the topic of "Internet encyclopedia projects", so I've stuck with a quick note about Britannica digitizing themselves. - IMSoP 14:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Question
I have no idea whether this is the proper forum, but it seems as good as one as any.
I have a dream.
(LOL @ quoting Dr. King)
I have a dream of an online landscape in which all the onilne encyclopedia/wiki projects trust each other enough to link to each other, and especially to each other's entries on each other.
I have an idea for an online project whose sole purpose is to promote this ideal.
Does such a thing exist already so I can join it, or should I go ahead and create one? --Nerd42 17:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In principle answers.com do use this to some extent, but not throughout its pages. HappyWanderer (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Title
Why does the title of this article have "project" on the end of it? We don't call the article for blogs "Blog project". I propose that the title is changed. It seems an obvious change, so I will make it in the next few days if there's no good reason not to. A.J.Chesswas 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because the article was written as early as in 2003, when there were no well established naming conventions. Judging from Category:Online encyclopedias, the preferred title would be "Online encyclopedia". `'Miikka 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Uncited statement
I've put a citation template in the past on grounds of WP:V. It has been removed twice with reasonings as "ummm..." and "oh for crying out loud". I assume good faith and understand it's not vandalism but excessive enthusiasm. However it is against what this project stands for. That is verifiability. What do other editors think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babedacus (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia
As by far the most well-known and successful Internet encyclopaedia project, should Wikipedia not be mentioned somewhat more prominently in this article? (Rather than just being one item of the list at the bottom.) Or is it considered abundantly obvious that anyone reading this article is already aware of Wikipedia, and thus it's unnecessary to devote much space to it? Terraxos 06:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
