User:That David Marshall
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am "that" David Marshall: the one who managed a whole two weeks in the role of Acting Managing Editor over at Citizendium. I would like to propose a project to the Wikipedia community. It could be carried out within the ambit of the Wikimedia Foundation or in partnership with it.
Encyclopaedias and compendiums are good things to have lying around if you want to look stuff up. They’re full of verifiable facts which are all potentially useful, but they’re not much fun to read.
So I propose that we set up “Wikiweeklies”. Wikipedia is proud of its featured articles and, for the most part, rightly so. Imagine a series of linked or separate free-to-view “publications” on a weekly cycle (in the first instance, a weekly cycle might be a little ambitious, but we could aim for it as more people come into the wiki). We could produce:
- a high-end, quality news and current events analysis which ultimately aims to compete with the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, etc.;
- an editorial and opinion section covering all the major stories and issues of the week;
- general readership content designed to appeal to as wide a range of readers internationally;
- arts, entertainment and leisure coverage: reviewing all the latest books, cinema, TV, and games, content on hobbies, travel, sport, etc.;
- a comics/funnies/humour section;
- etc., etc., etc.;
and all written up in the wiki and then released under one of the Creative Commons licences.
So, who would we need?
We would need knowledgeable people like everyone who turns up here at Wikipedia but, more importantly, we would want people who are looking for a different opportunity to write. All the news and comment would have to be neutral but, as in any conventional newspaper or periodical, it could be original work. The facts on which the articles were based would have to be verifiable, but analysis and conclusions could be your own. We would include a formal editorial/op. ed. section where explicitly POV content would be allowed. No more edit wars over single pages. There would be two or more articles on the same topic to provide balance, and we leave it to the readers to decide which of the views to prefer.
Further, I see no reason why the opportunity should be limited to writing. Those who are interested in photography, artwork, cartoons, comics, graphic design, etc. would be given an opportunity because we would offer both on-line content and formally composed e-papers for download as a pdf or other portable format.
What do we need now?
Before anything can happen, we need to know whether enough people are interested in this project.
If there is enough support, we will need dedicated server space and a group with enough technical skills to build the wiki and all the bolt-ons (like space and technical support provided by the Wikipedia Foundation)?
So, who is interested and what skills/resources can you bring to the table?
The content on page can be moved to a Wiki project proposal page for in-house consideration, anyone can comment on my talk page, and I have set up an e-mail account as: wikiweeklies@gmail.com
If the project looks feasible, we would begin setting up the wiki. During that time, we will formally call for volunteers to edit, design, and contribute to the periodicals.
Once the implementation work is done, we open the doors to the wiki and our first edition is only days away.
This is a lot of hard work. In the last few days, I have worked out the detail of this proposal, and I am prepared to contribute to a team to make it real but, before we go any further, we need to see whether there is a team out there willing to put in the work.
[edit] UPDATE
The newspaper will have its public launch in April 2007. Anyone else who wants into the project can reach me at wikiweeklies@gmail.com to discuss what contribution you could make. One thing I should mention is that we've decided to do it as a kind of commercial venture so those who do contribute will be paid as and when we have funds—gasp, a wiki that pays its contributors—sounds like even mentioning such a thing here, of all places, should be a sin.
