Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, , Britannica to stop printing books
Personal view: Nice idea, and would certainly be popular with the arbitrators - but it needs something to replace it that's slightly more complex than a dispute resolution noticeboard. It's nice to see the WMF taking over some of the more unpleasant roles that ArbCom does, but we then have no real way of desysopping someone, no centralised way of vetting checkusers or recording alternate accounts, and no way to deal with problems that involve private information. There's also the problem that DRNs tend to end up like ANI after a while, and ANI sometimes has trouble solving problems in an even-handed, considered manner. Richard Symonds On 21/03/2012 21:57, Kim Bruning wrote: deprecated arbcom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, , Britannica to stop printing books
This is an excellent idea - a kind of searchable sandbox where articles could eventually be promoted into the main site or simply used as in depth backing for a Wikipedia One article. It would need to have some high level sort mechanism to make it easier to access articles within a geopolitical area or niche focal point just to make it possible to disambiguate persons with the same name or the various flavors of engineering or architecture. Perhaps it could also serve as a beta test bed for Wikimedia software development. But what to call it? Wikipedia2 doesn't have much flavor. WikipediaLocalized? WikiDetails? WikipediaExpanded? WikipediaSuppliment? On 3/20/2012 5:24 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: From: David Goodmandgge...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc:r...@slmr.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, Britannica to stop printing books Message-ID: caniz0h18gyrky79jawzzskuaewd8rtwdc6mztun_y+66d7p...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 For English, and other languages also: What I suggest is a '''Wikipedia Two'' - an encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring Verifiability and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of barely notable articles in Wikipedia, and a good deal of what we do not let in. It would for example include both high schools and elementary schools. It would include college athletes. It would include political candidates. It would include neighborhood businesses, and fire departments. It would include individual asteroids. It would include streets--and also villages. It would include ever ball game in a season. It would include anyone who had a credited role in a film, or any named character in one--both the ones we currently leave out, and the ones we put in. This should satisfy both the inclusionists and the deletionists. The deletionists would have this material out of Wikipedia, the inclusionists would have it not rejected. Newcomers would have an open and accepting place for a initial experience. But it would be interesting to see the results of a search option: Do you want to see everything (WP+WP2), or only the really notable (WP)? Anyone care to guess which people would choose? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, , Britannica to stop printing books
But what to call it? Wikipedia2 doesn't have much flavor. WikipediaLocalized? WikiDetails? WikipediaExpanded? WikipediaSuppliment? On 3/20/2012 5:24 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: From: David Goodmandgge...@gmail.com What I suggest is a '''Wikipedia Two'' - an encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring Verifiability and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of barely notable articles in Wikipedia, and a good deal of what we do not let in. But it would be interesting to see the results of a search option: Do you want to see everything (WP+WP2), or only the really notable (WP)? Anyone care to guess which people would choose? Ha! I'd choose Wikipedia2 anyday! ;-) (my favorite articles keep getting deleted from wikipedia. How's that useful to anyone?) Notability was originally a stopgap for verifiability IIRC. It's gone off the rails imo. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:40:20AM -0700, Robin McCain wrote: This is an excellent idea - a kind of searchable sandbox where articles could eventually be promoted into the main site or simply used as in depth backing for a Wikipedia One article. I'm thinking wikipedia needs a reboot anyway. We'll probably end up with a replay of wikipedia/nupedia if we reboot a wp2 with tidied up and streamlined policy (redesign as a pattern language), integrated Prod/AFD, deprecated arbcom in favor of DRN, and most importantly: ensuring new users all get mentors. Acculturation failure has severely harmed WP1, we need some way to bring experienced and inexperienced users together reliably. This is the simplest and best way to retain editors. :-) sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
