Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Introduction

I created Wikipedia:Breadth and quality mainly to discuss the tension between the goals of quantity and quality, and what, if anything, to do about it. The page originally had two main components.

1. The first was about the priorities of adding material versus editing and other Wikipedia chores. That discussion has been moved to "Best ways to help Wikipedia" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Namespace.

2. The second main idea was about working toward a printworthy subset of Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards, I had brought up my idea about a different type of Wikipedia :Collaboration of the Week, or something roughly similar, to work toward a paper version of Wikipedia. Jmabel gave a general positive response and offered some suggestions.
I announced the basics at the Village Pump and spun the idea off to Wikipedia:Breadth and quality, where Sundar supported it and we refined it to some degree.
Of course, it can still be refined further with anyone who joins us.

Maurreen 07:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Initial discussion

My idea and Jmabel's response here were copied from Weekly collaboration at Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards (archive4) Maurreen 01:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because there is so much to do, a weekly collaboration might be good. I think that could add a lot of focus. Maurreen 17:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia seems to be getting more and more of these. I think they are generally helpful. It's not a bad place to start, but I would suggest two other alternatives:
  1. That more people with this orientation get involved in some of the existing collaborations.
  2. That if we start doing collaborations out of this forum, after it gets its legs I'd rather see four or five proceeding simultaneously for a month than one singled out each week. This is often slow work -- a week may not be enough -- and depending on the subject-matter area, very different people will be involved: not a lot of people know abstract algebra, Eastern European history, and Japanese pop culture. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe there should be another Collaboration of the Week, or something similar, with a different purpose, essentially to find, screen, develop or maintain (or all of those) articles appropriate for a paper or "release" version of Wikipedia.

I envision that this could start at top-level categories and branch out from there. Maurreen 01:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am all for this. -- Sundar 09:43, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your response!
How much do you think we should base it on the main CotW?
We need to narrow the idea down a little. I'm interested in suggestions.
One possibility would be for the first stage to go through top-level categories, one a week, and see how much we can improve them. Then we could list those versions on a page with their status. Maurreen

Name

Do you have any ideas about what we should call this effort? Maurreen 07:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We could call ourselves the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. And we wouldn't have to limit our collaboration on any given thing to a week. We could just move on whenever we decide. Just some thoughts. Maurreen 18:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The name is fine unless some one else comes up with a better one. -- Sundar 05:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Possibly the name of this effort should be called Wikipedia 0.1.Wikipedia sits in the open source community and it is traditional to give products 1.0 standard when they are bug free and excellent quality; which is why Mozilla Firefox has just gained that standard. The only articles worthy of the name Wikipedia 1.0 would be our featured articles, and a number of people consider those standards not high enough. Someone in the archive people compare that to Encyclopedia Britannica standards. Are you trying to create articles that meet the minimum standards for the initial release version or are you aiming to produce articles of featured article or higher standards? I suggest 0.1 if you aims are modest and are not trying to replicate WP:FAC.  :ChrisG 22:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about 0.5? Maurreen 01:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

0.5 sounds like it corresponds with Jimbo's concept of 'usable' articles. :ChrisG 09:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not familiar with that. Do you mean yes, no or maybe? Maurreen 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just saw what you're talking about. That makes sense, to a point. I hope I come across the right way. I mean, those three ratings make sense. But it seeems like most of Wikipedia is at the usable stage right now.
If anyone else wants the name changed, we can do that. I'm thinking we don't need to have mid-level group and a final group of editors, at least not yet. And I'd like to avoid changing the name of this, if it might need to change again later.
I think what I'm hoping for, out of this page, is that we get articles of feature quality. But more realistically, we might just raise the standards for those ones we do work, so maybe they'd get to 0.7 or 0.8.
Do you want to take a look at the Culture article and see how it has improved so far? Jmabel did most of the work. Of course, the more people helping, the more we can accomplish. Maurreen 16:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikireaders

Just found Wikipedia:WikiReader. Are we attempting to reinvent that? -- Sundar 07:28, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's what I had in mind.
I think the Wikireaders are for a relatively narrow topic area, and I hope this to be broad.
It is possible that sections (such as maybe geography or whatever) could become Wikireader stages along the way, but that's not what I'm shooting for and would only be incidental. Maurreen 05:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikireaders should be small range. This project though, would be large scale, and involve trying to create a broad based book. I like it. Count me in ;) Lyellin 01:10, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! Maurreen 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Moved page

This certainly does not belong in the main namespace. I strongly recommend at least moving it to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team and then putting this inappropriate name on WP:VFD. Even in Wikipedia namespace, the name may piss some people off as presumptuous, but I guess that's their problem. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:26, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Done. My mistake. Maurreen 08:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great, I'll list the old name as a redirect for deletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I'm sorry. I didn't realize there was a separate deletion process for redirects. I listed it under VfD.
Also, Jmabel, should I move or copy your related comments from the Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards archive? You had good suggestions. Maurreen 20:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Feel free to copy, but please indicate that they are copied, that I didn't write them on this page myself. This is standard practice, and you should feel free to do that with anyone's comments on any talk page if there is a reason. Definitely copy rather than "move" in the sense of deleting from the original: again standard practice for taking content from talk pages and archives. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The new name

Shouldn't this be in the Wikipedia name space? Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. RickK 08:31, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I fixed. My mistake. Thanks to both of you for pointing it out. Maurreen 08:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Groups

About Jmabel's suggestion of building up a "web of trust": A page for that was started somewhere on Wikipedia. But it is general, and doesn't indicate areas of expertise.

About that and Slim's idea of an advisory group: Another way to do that or something similar could be to use or build off the Lists(s) of Wikipedians (where people are listed by interest, etc.). Maurreen 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Media

If the purpose of this project is a paper encyclopaedia then I will withdraw. I already have three paper encyclopaedias and in my opinion the world doesn't need any more of them. They are an obselete medium. That is why I decided to join in writing an online encyclopaedia, a beautiful 21st century idea. I am completly mystified why you think that the culmination of our work should be to return to the 19th century and produce an enormous book which no-one will buy and which will out of date before anyone gets the chance to. Adam 14:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

V.1.0 is most likely a CD/DVD, according to the Chicago meetup Oct 24, 2004 notes. The archive for pushing to 1.0 shows that CD/DVD is closest to the hypertext that we are used-to, but does not have the live quality of the web, and which yet still allows a link to the live Wikipedia (us) when the reader is connected. Ancheta Wis 15:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If we were to consider print versus CD, we might also consider the analogy between an article and a music track on a CD: the average user is not interested in all of an artist's work; the average user simply enjoys a certain track from one artist, and another track from another artist, and so forth. We might, in a print or CD version, also allow the reader to rip what whatever articles they want and create their own mix for their own purposes. We might, in the support software for a CD version, allow the user to create a playlist of the articles, and then allow the user to print their selected subset of Wikipedia articles. If that user were then to become interested in another part of the world's knowledge, that user could just come back to the fountain of world knowledge, and print another part or selection of parts. (You can tell I have been influenced by Jimbo's talk - free access to the world's knowledge) Ancheta Wis 15:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ancheta Wis, I don't understand that completely, and I'm not sure I want to yet, but it seems like something good to maybe reach for. Maurreen 16:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there is any chance of getting all of Wikipedia up to a "releasable" standard. There is, however, a chance of getting thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of articles to that level and marking them as such. Obviously, that directly benefits the online project. It also makes possible WikiReaders, which will probably be CD-ROMs (but could theoretically also be published on paper if a publisher wants to do that: after all, they are GFDL, someone can do that without any extra permission from us), and will almost certainly each either have a subject-matter focus or possibly I could imagine one that is more of a "Best Of" collection. This is not a new idea. There are already two CD-ROM-published German-language WikiReaders. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:10, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with that trying to get all of Wikipedia to a releaseable standard is out of reach. And Wikireaders are one good option. The release version could also be publish-on-demand or PDFs. We don't need to convince a publisher; we could self-publish. But I think any of that is a long way off anyway. Maurreen 20:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just to put a word in, mostly because I'm active on the Shakespeare and about to start another, it's been my understanding that the two german wikireaders are actually paper. The process though, could lend itself very easily to either paper or CD. From the Wikireader page: "WikiReaders are collections of articles from Wikipedia on a certain topic, in the form of PDFs published for download and intended to be printed, and also to be sold in printed form (e.g. via the Webshop )." So it would be very easy for this project to become a almost genre project. Decide on a subject that we want to get decent, go through and get those articles decent, and then work to collect them all on a list and publish a wikireader. If you guys want to check up on the Shakespeare articles, go ahead :) Lyellin 22:38, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I was looking at the Wikireaders a week or two ago. How far are you along? Can you let us know when you're done? Maurreen 03:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can and will. Right now the Shakespeare one has pretty much decided on what articles we are going to use (done to around 8 we are still vetting), and we are now going through and checking each article. If it looks good to use as is, we pick a version and make it on the project page. Once we get all that, we'll finish copyediting/expanding stubs, and then put it all together. One thing that hurts the Readers is that we have a very small base working on them, and normally only one "leader" figure. If either drop off at all, the project slows a lot. Please feel free to invite anyone you know shakespeare wise to join the project! Lyellin 03:39, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Alternatives

The alternatives given below are more or less about which topics to cover when. Eventually, all would be covered. This is food for thought or discussion.

Geography

A related idea, at whatever stage, would be geographic articles. The advantage is that geography is both broad and narrow. What I'm trying to say is that a reliable Wikiatlas or Wiki Guide to X Region could be relatively quick to finish. It could stand alone, yet at the same time, be a broad base for a "finished" version of encyclopedia. I'm not sure how clear I'm being.

Maurreen 17:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maureen, I guess you meant bounded, when you said geography is both broad and narrow. I would prefer the first alternative of going through top-level categories and improving them. This would engage a wider spectrum of wikipedians than just taking up geographic articles. But, if there are sufficient number of wikipedians with interest in geographic articles, then the second possibility is viable -- Sundar 06:39, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

OK, top-level articles is good. We can start at Culture and just go in alphabetical order, unless you have another preference. Maurreen

I am fine with this. -- Sundar 05:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

And you were right: "Bounded" was the word I was looking for to describe geography. Maurreen 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most-popular articles

An alternative to going along the top-level of the category hierarchy would be to factor in what articles are the most popular on Wikipedia; there are some stats available for this, although they are a month or two out of date at the moment. At a guess, I would think that something like 90% of visitors only read a certain group of pages which amount to something like 10% of the entire Wikipedia. From an "improving reader experience" point of view, it might be worth focusing some attention on that 10%. — Matt 18:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My belief is that the more popular articles will be watched for and edited more often. But, Maureen's motive seems to be to produce a subset of Wikipedia that's printworthy, also that the collection of articles in such a subset should be comprehensive for at least a few classes. -- Sundar 05:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Matt's idea has merit, but I agree with Sundar: that the most popular articles are usually likely to be the most edited and in decent shape, and also about the goals. Maurreen 07:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other alternatives

  • Top-level articles in other categorization schemes
Interesting, can you elaborate? -- Sundar 07:20, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
These are what I mean:
  • English language (articles about the language)
  • Geography (see above)
  • Glossaries
  • Reference tables
  • Timelines
  • The Wikibooks bookshelves categorisations - Estel (talk) 20:32, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to join the team

I'm a fairly good writer, a hard worker, and although I'm new to Wikipedia, I'm picking the wiki stuff up pretty quickly. How do I join the Editorial Team?*Kat* 07:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)