Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 12

message: I think it would be easier to use a bot + a script. The script would create a "rate" tab on each article and post the rating to a user subpage. The bot would look at the ratings on the user subpage and get the final rating somehow. This way, we don't have to wait for the developers to make changes to the software because the bot can be run by one user and the scripts can be posted on the scripts page. We could make the script more well known by posting it on the village pump. The bot doesn't need to be well known because only a single user has to run it. I posted this on the Wikisort discussion page too. Eyu100 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry your note has been ignored. But this is too technical for me. Maurreen 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisort software suggestion 

message: # How should we publish this?  As I understand it, the Torrent folks are ready to make downloads available as soon as we have our compilation together.  We can presumably make other downloads available too.  The main purpose of V0.5 was to test the process, so we could make it a small private CD release if we wanted (see no. 2!), running off a few hundred CDs is not an expensive job.  I would argue, though, that we should also pilot the publication process by finding a publisher interested in working with us for Version 1.0 etc.  They might well want to test the waters themselves, so they may like V0.5.  In that case we need to 
# Find a publisher.  We had a publisher slightly interested last year, but alas that has evaporated.  Webaroo (see earlier post on this page) seems like mainly software, not content. Any suggestions?  The Poles and Germans found a natural fit with companies specialising in books & CDs on computer-related topics.  I'm making a few phone calls myself.
# Get the final format agreed upon, then ready for publication.  What do we want as a "front end" - should we use the SOS CD front end?  Can we use something from the German or Polish WP1.0, or use Emmanuel's software being prepared for the French V1.0?  Or should we look at Webaroo?
# We also need format the articles for offline release.  This involves running scripts to turn redlinks into plain text, organising pictures, etc.
# Copyright work - the copyright tags on all pictures will need to be checked.  I would propose getting the publisher to do that, they would probably want to do that anyway.
# How do we make sure that people can find the articles?  We can have categories, but we'll also want some redirects and lists.  In the article selection, we've often tried to add in a suitable list to match the set of articles.
What do people think of this?  Should we set up a task force? Walkerma 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you need to do this (and people won't like an installer) . you should go for a version which only requires a browser like WPCD did. That was 2000 articles and took 180M so you could get 5000 on a CD IF (like WPCD) you settle for thumbnails only for the images.--BozMo talk 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the board want to get involved they have to shorten the current one year plus response times --BozMo talk 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: eh :-) I certainly would not recommand having the whole stuff approved by the board. For two main reasons. One is slowliness from the board. The second is that it is very important that we avoid setting up a default process where any reuse of content, or any printing of content has to be approved by the board, or by the Foundation. I think that was the sense of the comment made above. It is best to contact the special project committee for three reasons. One is that we need to ensure that we do not have several similar initiatives ongoing, meeting similar problems and each trying to solve it. In this sense, I think it is best we somehow find a place where we can pool experiences. Second, we may (or may not) have "contact" with poeple who could help ease the problems you are meeting; Maybe technical issues, maybe publishing issues etc... Third, it is best to know, at least the first time, exactly where legal issues stand. Imho Anthere
*# I don't have any preference for the front end, but am concerned with how the back end would work more.
*# This would be something done by the publisher, agreed, but we should decide whether we are going to use fair use pictures or not. A list of problematic tags is available at Wikimedia and Mandriva on Meta. 
*# I have no clue about the redirects. We can use MediaWiki's built-in search function (it is going to be a static version, so there's no need to worry about purging searchindex tables), but we always have Special:Prefixindex and Special:Allpages, which can be used a bit creatively to provide an alphabetical index.
* That's just a few thoughts... Titoxd(?!?) 06:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Pediapress (pediapressDOTcom/)does indeed look very interesting, thanks for that!  Either Wed or Thur night is good for me.  As for scripts, can't we base this on User:BozMo's scripts from the SOS CD?  I think he would be happy to fix shortcomings in those scripts as he is planning a new release of the SOS CD later this year. Thanks, Walkerma 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thursday night is probably best for me (although my schedule this week is quite unpredictable, so I don't know if I'll be able to make it anyways).  I recall that the pediapress site had some issue with css in templates when I last looked at it; I'll have to see if they're still present. Kirill Lokshin 04:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre-publication work 

message: I agree with considering the publish-on-demand model, such as Lulu or maybe Cafe Press. I don't think I have any objection to any of the above. Maurreen 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc. comments

message: Folks here might enjoy this - is it a first for us?  Seriously, it's good to get feedback like this - sadly I agree with it (though I reverted it for the bot's sake). Walkerma 03:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have automated user ratings finally arrived??? 

message: You are right about navigation being very important (we need more), but I think you also need to look at the section exclude suggestions I made. SOS have some volunteers lined up for Oct to do the next revision (which will be 500- articles and inevitably include all of the ones you have approved by then): I am happy to run the same script on 0.5 and both post and zip it up somewhere for you to look at and think about. That should as least make the remaining wish list easier. We have got a couple of possible publishers in dialogue for our next version: I guess we would converge at that point. --BozMo talk 19:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other thoughts 

message: I was asked by Walkerma to write something. Our approach is quite different. We have started from the other side - by looking for a company to work with. We are going to publish a Polish Wikipedia "as is" just by removing obvious general knowlege mistakes, POV and copyright violations, but without selecting articles or serious changing its content. IMHO the choice of company should be based on its ability to accept GNU FDL licence and power of distribution and marketing. We have just choosen a Polish company which is strong on local market  - it is able to distribute and advertise their product all over the country. I guess in case of English Wikipedia  it is more tricky. The best choice should be a company able to distribute the CD/DVD in all English spoken countries, or you may cooperate with several companies - one by each country? Polimerek 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish DVD 

message: People here (and in the WikiProjects) will be very interested to hear that there is now a list available showing the most viewed articles (top 100).  Of course I'm disappointed that cannabis (drug) is the only chemistry article (#86) other than periodic table (#19), whereas list of gay porn stars made #4.  Maybe core topics should have more sex articles in it??!! This list will be very useful, though, particularly if we can get it expanded to a top 1000 like this old list.  Walkerma 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but... where is this new list? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikicharts 

message: I think it is premature to add anything about quality ratings to the overall project page, outside of the "Work via Wikiprojects" section. I think some disparate elements are getting mixed up in the discussion above.
Alai's question and the ensuring discussion are not entirely clear to me.
The original question was "Can anyone tell me what the presumed standard for inclusion in 1.0 is, preferably in terms of the assessment classes?"
But I'm not sure whether Alai intended to ask specifically about "1.0", release versions in general, or actually 0.5, the version planned for release this fall (not to mention Bozmo's work). I'm also not sure whether Alai is asking more about whatever release version or the ratings themselves.
The basis for inclusion in 0.5 can generally be found at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations. More information about criteria is here, for both 0.5 and 1.0. The previous plan for 1.0 is suspended, for reasons noted at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Nominations#Status and options. We might have one or more versions between 0.5 and 1.0.
As far as I know, in the great majority of case, the quality ratings have at least generally been handled by wikiprojects that choose to use them. Emphasis on them would make a bias toward subjects covered by those projects. Also, a good number of those ratings have been applied after fairly only cursory review. Maurreen 07:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: Just for reference, because I am not sure it will lead anywhere yet, nor sure they would be interested selling or publishing english content yet. In september, I will have a meeting with a big big company, which cumulate several types of activities, DVD sales included. Beginning this week end probably, I'll start preparing this meeting and to see if there is anything I can show them from the version 0.5. Can you point out to me to one of the nicest (most complete, very descriptive) part of the version 0.5 ? Anthere
:Exciting news!  Please keep us updated! We don't have a really nice write-up to show you - maybe I should work on that.  Our main listing is here, though the top level categories got changed to an unorthodox system and no one has had time to switch it back (see [[WP:V0.5N for our "orthodox" categorisation).  We are aware that content is a bit unbalanced at present, both in general (e.g., weak on politics, stronger on pop music) and even within specific subjects (for example, we have included Ann Arbor, Michigan but not Los Angeles).  We hope to try and fix that during September - we won't succeed completely, but remember this is only really an alpha test.  We also made the decision that certain articles might be used to showcase FAs on significant but not top-importance topics.  I predict that we'll get 1500 articles in place by September 30. Walkerma 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publisher

message: I would like to suggest that we strongly consider self-publishing and "publish-on-demand", such as Lulu.com or Cafe Press. For one thing, doing so would allow us to maintain more control; it would be more wiki-like. I also have some doubt about the response of a standard publisher to our 0.5, etc. For instance, if someone is interested in whatever we have to offer, they don't need to offer us anything in return. They don't need to anything but uphold the GFDL. I can elaborate on any of this if anyone is interested. If we publish it ourselves, any proceeds could go to the foundation. Maurreen 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they would need to offer us something in return, at least if they wish to use the Wikipedia name for whatever they publish (and not doing so would be rather silly; how many of them really want to brand their own encyclopedia?). Kirill Lokshin 09:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Kirill... if they use "Wikipedia", a registered trademark, then they need to perhaps contact Brad in Tampa about it. I don't eliminate the opinion, but there's some legal issues to deal with here. Titoxd(?!?) 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-publishing and publish-on-demand

message: Held at 20:00 UTC, probably on Sunday.  This meeting will cover several topics, of which WP1.0 issues will just form one part.  Keep track of things on meta here. Sign up on that meta page if you plan to attend. Walkerma 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  After two hours on the first 3 items, I assumed that we wouldn't have time to reach #8, so I left!  We'll talk again on #static next Sunday at 4pm EST, then. Walkerma 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General meeting of the Wikimedia Special Projects Committee

message: Maybe it would be good for those of us interested to indicate here any particular days or times that are good or bad for scheduling meetings. Maurreen 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meeting where? In real or in IRC for example? I'm a bit far from you guys. :) NCurse  work 08:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it's on IRC, not in person. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 09:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scheduling future meetings

message: Is someone gonna buy a release?????  Who's going to buy a release when its done?!?!!!  Whose going to fund the publication?!?!/etc...!!!?!  Please repond on my talk page, thanks!100110100 03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh?!?!