So as not to destroy the Wikipedia in order to save it:

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

So as not to destroy the Wikipedia in order to save it:

David Gerard-2
Move en.wikipedia.org to en-dev.wikipedia.org and put only the
contents of the Wikipedia 0.5 DVD at en.wikipedia.org.

Betcha we'll suddenly have amazingly efficient procedures for getting
good content across from dev to stable.

This also avoids the issue of appearing to declare the Wikipedia
project a failure by effectively shutting it down and/or deleting
large swathes of it. Since, after all, the impetus for this is nothing
but public relations.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: So as not to destroy the Wikipedia in order to save it:

Andrew Gray
On 02/04/07, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Move en.wikipedia.org to en-dev.wikipedia.org and put only the
> contents of the Wikipedia 0.5 DVD at en.wikipedia.org.
>
> Betcha we'll suddenly have amazingly efficient procedures for getting
> good content across from dev to stable.
>
> This also avoids the issue of appearing to declare the Wikipedia
> project a failure by effectively shutting it down and/or deleting
> large swathes of it. Since, after all, the impetus for this is nothing
> but public relations.

I suggested something similar last month :-)

: This is a perfect project for an "ongoing fork". Every article on
: StablePedia is a static copy of a past Wikipedia article,
: perhaps slightly tidied by SP editors and reviewers; old
: revisions aren't displayed, and if they click 'edit' people
: are pointed back to Wikipedia to work on the ongoing draft.
: When you want to update, you just dump the old one, grab
: a new copy, approve and post on StablePedia - GFDL
: compliance is simple enough, and this means you can
: display your "approval infrastructure" nice and cleanly
: without conflicting with the live project. There's no conceptual
: reason the Foundation couldn't host both, either, and it might
: even be beneficial to do so as a trial balloon.

Doesn't require "stable versions", even, just a clearer segregation of
drafts and published articles. 'Course, how we keep it up to date is a
good question...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: So as not to destroy the Wikipedia in order to save it:

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
"David Gerard" wrote

> Since, after all, the impetus for this is nothing
> but public relations.

WP has always needed the right kind of good PR.

We have become a bit blasé about press coverage, I think. Has anyone pointed out to this list last week's Technology Guardian snippet: search for 'Bob Woolmer' gives the enWP page as second destination after his personal page. Fantastic! (I thought I'd check the page while writing this - oops, vandalism to revert.)

We have a _huge_ readership, and a steadily growing share of web traffic (per Alexa), itself a growing market.

Sure, if PR is 'reputation management', let's not get too fatigued with the day-to-day brawling, and wonder also about priorities some more. I have something in mind about 'the bottom of the barrel', and trying to define sensibly what we want to do about not scraping it straight into low-rent articles.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: So as not to destroy the Wikipedia in order to save it:

David Gerard-2
On 02/04/07, [hidden email]
<[hidden email]> wrote:

 I have something in mind about 'the bottom of the barrel', and trying
to define sensibly what we want to do about not scraping it straight
into low-rent articles.


At this point you lost me in the fogs of metaphor ... er, come again?


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: So as not to destroy the Wikipedia in order to save it:

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
Andrew Gray wrote:
> Doesn't require "stable versions", even, just a clearer segregation of
> drafts and published articles. 'Course, how we keep it up to date is a
> good question...

Since stable versions appears to finally be on the verge of actually
being implemented, how about waiting to see what we can do with that
first? It'd be much easier to transfer articles back and forth between
"dev" and "live" branches if all that needed to be done was to fiddle
with flags in the revision history.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l