Wikipedia talk:Pushing to 1.0

message: I am opposed to a CD/DVD version or any other version other than online. Wikipedia1.0 ought to an online encyclopaedia, a subset of Wikipedia, with articles which are certified as complete and accurate and then protected from vandalism. I am not interested in working on any other kind of WP1.0. Adam 15:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but I think there's plenty of people who are interested in CD/DVD/paper versions of Wikipedia. Look at it this way; regardless of whether 1.0 is a set of "locked" Wikipedia articles or a publication on fixed media, the process of selecting and improving articles to a "complete" standard is a common goal, right? — Matt 13:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is someone opposed to a version on removable media?  I can't see the problem, I plain simply can't see it.  I'm lost here.  Samboy 14:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition

message: I don't understand "extension" as used on the project page. Maurreen 17:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By extension it is meant that the publishing standards (i.e. electronic (CD/DVD) and print) must take a usable (0.5) or featured (1.0) article as their basic building block. However, for publishing reasons things like format may need to change; and there may be changes needed for legal reasons. I think Mandrake want us to remove all fair use images for their forthcoming DVD release of Wikipedia. I'll amend the project page to make it clearer. :ChrisG 12:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Extension?

message: Today I created User:Maurreen/Basic topics to list a small selection of core topics. Maurreen 00:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic topics

message: Maybe this is kind of silly, but are there any plans to make archives of the wikipedia that will be able to survive for a long time?  I'm talking nuclear wars, solar flares, collapses of empires, dark ages, etc.  CDs, hard drives, and the like, even if there are thousands of copies distributed all over the world, don't really cut it.  Imagine if we had the equivalent from 5000 years ago.  (Then again, maybe we do.  I'm no archaeologist.  I imagine most of the records from that far back were destroyed or degraded to dust, though.)  Just a thought. - Omegatron 02:17, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I think it is kind of silly - we have no idea what sorts of weapons will be made in the future. It will also run against the laws of thermodynamics unless we can come up with a really clever way of harnessing useful energy. But also see :Category:Time capsules. Brianjd 13:51, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
:the single most succesful method of preserving information over millennia is to inscribe it in stone. so get a chisel and start chipping away beginning with the featured articles. dab (ᛏ) 08:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clay is good too, but I hear you need to burn a building down on top of it. silsor 08:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it's not that silly.  Wikipedia is an excellent project, and longevity is a reasonable thing to want.  I don't know of any current actual efforts in the direction described by Omegatron, but it's a good thing to think about.
<BR>Here's some related topics:
*Slashdot discussion of media longevity
*Long Now Foundation
*KEO
*Internet Archive
I don't know how KEO has determined that their data disks will last 50,000 years, but if they're right, Wikipedia could be backed up on the same sorts of disks.  User:Jose_Icaza even suggested using Wikipedia itself as their "modern Library of Alexandria," but I don't know if anything became of that.
<BR>So there you go.  If Jean-Marc Philippe can put 50,000-year-durable data disks with enormous amounts of information on a satellite with a decaying orbit, concievably so could we. Or we could try a more down-to-earth approach and try just keeping the disks on earth, eh?  Maybe if Wikipedia becomes a sizeable enough phenomenon, the Smithsonian or some other organization might preserve a few disks for us.
<BR>PS: Another related topic: James Lovelock (the Gaia Theory originator) has apparently proposed that a "startup manual for civilization" be kept handy somewhere in the event of a global catastrophe.  --Mr. Billion 19:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no idea how you'd doi t, and I think it's a good idea. But there's  flaw: Wikipedia will be much more advanced by the time this backup is needed. The world isn't going to collapse as soon as this archive is made. HereToHelp 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Long-term archival

message: I have started a "baseline revision" experiment. I figure it overlaps with this effort. I have started off our first attempt to find a baseline revision for Common Unix Printing System. The proposal is here and is locked in to stop vandals from editing the URL to the revision: Common Unix Printing System/Proposed baseline. See the talk page to see the objections and review for the proposed baseline revision. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Baseline revision]] 

message: User:Fbd has made a suggestion on Village pump proposals (at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Audio Article) of creating audio versions of wikipedia articles, i.e. an edition accessible to the blind.  This would obviously require static versions of the articles, so 1.0 would be ideal for this.  I don't know how we would go about co-ordinating this or whether anyone has already tried.  What do people think? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:SteveW (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 Apr 2005
: I think this is a good idea, but do we necessarily need static versions of the artices; what's the argument for this? Wouldn't a reasonably fresh version of a Featured Article suffice? — Matt Crypto 20:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just meant that we obviously couldn't redo audio versions for every page update - we'd have to base it on a specific version.  SteveW | Talk 20:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else clearly had this idea as well: I've just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
Wikipedia 1.0 pretty much requires static versions.  A problem even found with featured articles is, how do you know exactly which version is considered "validated" enough to be chosen to be the static version? I was just about to comment on this and suggest that Spoken Articles and their corresponding texts are excellent criteria for static versions, but y'all beat me to it. This is one pretty good way of determining the quality of an article, anyway: somebody who took the time to read an entire article aloud and then upload it as an .ogg would very likely pick a safe and reliable version.  You can't easily change an audio file, so being a spoken article is a very good "safety" marker.  All the average vandal wants to do is spend two seconds inserting OMG PWNED into an article to get a weird thrill.  
<BR>Two problems, though: One, there are currently relatively few spoken articles, so this criterion wouldn't be widely applicable; and two, if spoken articles do become much more common, the chances of somebody either mistakenly or maliciously uploading a bad or flawed audio file will increase, reducing the value of this safety marker. 
<BR>So as time goes on and there are multiple possible spoken article versions, we'll run into much the same problems that we have with text articles, although on a smaller scale. You'll still have to balance up-to-dateness, bias, and reliability.  Mr. Billion 18:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio articles 

message: It occured to me a few hours ago, and I think it's totally brilliant (why wouln't I?).
A good milestone in the push to 1.0 might be this: every article in the m:List of articles all languages should have should be featured.  Since these ~1000 articles represent, theoretically, some of the most important topics for us to cover, if they're all featured, it means good things for the quality of our encyclopaedia.
Current progress: we have 600 featured articles, 45 of which are on the list.  The rest of the items on the list have not been promoted.
The featured articles that are on the list are: 
Abraham Lincoln -
Albert Einstein -
Algorithm -
Bahá'í Faith -
Baseball -
Bicycle -
Big Bang -
Black hole -
Buddhism -
Byzantine Empire -
Chess -
Christianity -
Coca-Cola -
Comet -
Diamond -
Economics -
Elizabeth I of England -
Elizabeth II of England -
Euro -
European Union -
Evolution -
Ferdinand Magellan -
Galileo Galilei -
Glass -
Go (board game) -
Greek mythology -
Helium -
Hinduism -
Jazz -
Julius Caesar -
Mahatma Gandhi -
Niagara Falls -
Olympic Games -
Poetry -
Quantum mechanics -
Richard Feynman -
Supply and demand -
Tank -
Tea -
The Beatles -
Tony Blair -
Tuberculosis -
Victoria of the United Kingdom -
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart -
World War I
→Iñgōlemo← talk 07:00, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
*Just a note that En.wikipedia's version is here: Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have, the featured ones are bolded. Doesn't seem to be exactly the same as the meta version, eg meta has tuberculosis and bling (sigh). Kappa 07:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New goal idea 

message: "For instance, Mandrake requires us to remove all fair use images for legal reasons for their intended DVD release of Wikipedia."
Who is Mandrake? I haven't heard of this organization.  Mr. Billion 19:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandrake 

message: Anyone knows what the current status is of this project? I think if we could get a Wikipedia 1.0 DVD/book it would create an amazing public awareness. The featured articles would be a good place to start since there's already 700 of them. Then we could create a list of topics of which articles we want to include (ie. all countries, history articles on every period, all science topics, etc) and work on the missing articles to get the best 10,000 or 100,000 or whichever. Also since all text is free, it doesn't have to be Jimbo behind the project, anyone with the time and resources could start making this happen. Elfguy 16:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Take the reigns" ==> "Take the reins". Unless it was a clever pun. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
===Manageable size===
I'm not sure all of WP will fit on a disk. How about starting with something much smaller, perhaps along the lines of this list? It could be the "alpha" version, as a stage to grow and learn from, something that might build momentum for a larger effort. Maurreen (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: I'm not sure all of WP will fit on a disk. How about starting with something much smaller, perhaps along the lines of this list? It could be the "alpha" version, as a stage to grow and learn from, something that might build momentum for a larger effort. Maurreen (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Manageable size

message: I think this idea of a DVD and/or paper copy of Wikipedia is a great idea.  I for one would buy a copy- like many others I can't afford to have the internet at home, and also I prefer to read a book than a monitor.
The quality issue seems to have been (quite rightly) a perennial one here - may I suggest the use of a system we use in WP:Chem?  We have over a thousand chemical compounds we are sifting through and trying to improve to what we call "A-class" standard.  We set ourselves a list of around 400 compounds, this is our equivalent of List of articles all languages should have.  We track overall progress at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals, but the nitty-gritty work is done at our worklist where we periodically assess each article according to our assessment criteria as "stub", "start", "B-class" or "A-class".  Once articles reach or get close to "A-class" they get discussed in detail on the A-class articles page.  The system is still fairly new, and there are only a handful of us, but we have already seen a lot of progress, because people can easily see what needs to be done and there is a sense of achievement when we get there.  
One problem with limiting things to featured articles is that it will only be a handful of articles.  I expect that within a couple of years we will have at least 300 good articles on the most significant chemical compounds.  If this were matched across Wikipedia as a whole (and there are a LOT of very good non-FA articles out there) we would probably have at least 10-20,000 really good articles, perhaps more.  If we set up a broader system of goals, assessment and tracking we would know what was out there.  Could this system of goals, assessment and tracking used on WP:Chem be adapted for this project too? Walkerma 21:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good in theory. But as with many ideas, I think we lack two things to pull it off -- the right leader and a critical mass of energy. Maurreen (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion on quality standards 

message: I was just thinking about the current criteria for Wikipedia 1.0, and it seems slightly unrealistic.  More importantly, I think I may have come up with a way for us to achieve most of those current goals (and some new ones) with much less effort.  My idea is basically that instead of Wikipedia 1.0 being a subset of certified articles, we should just slap everything onto DVDs and have the software check the internet for the newest version.  That is, the veiwing software would automagically download only the differences between the online copy and the local copy, or if no internet connection is available, simply revert to the local copy.  That would simultanously minimize the need for certified articles, and potentially greatly reduce the amount of server bandwidth needed.  What do you think of this idea?  I know many people would like to see certified articles, but the task of doing this for anything but an extreme subset of Wikipedia is immense, and in my opinion the effort would be better served improving the online version.  Also, I am strongly against the idea of a paper version, as that would A. cost money, and B. lack all the editing advantages of the electronic version.the1physicist 04:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has merit. Maurreen (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to assume that the "static" version (whether paper or DVD) would appeal mostly to people without regular internet access.  Therefore, most copies would be updated seldom or never.  Whatever was shipped would be what most users would read.  A snapshot of Wikipedia at any given moment includes vandalism, heavily POV passages, English so garbled it barely seems like English, and perhaps even an outright hoax or two.  I'd hate to send out something like that in a comparatively static format. JamesMLane 09:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *People without internet access would rather have access to a flawed encyclopedia than nothing at all. Kappa 14:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea, though I would see it not as an alternative to 1.0, it is something different altogether.  Sure, it would be full of errors, but no more so than the fully online version! I think it's more work than the poster suggests, however- at least as much as producing a paper version.  Walkerma 14:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kappa's comment, but the choice isn't between publishing a complete snapshot and doing nothing at all.  I prefer the alternative of issuing a DVD in which there's been some form of screening/certification.  If 1.0 were published on paper, of course, the exercise of some selectivity would be a practical necessity.  Errors in a static version are much different from the same errors in the online version, because the latter are readily subject to correction (through the "enough eyeballs" principle that's at the heart of the wiki approach). JamesMLane 17:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you didn't read my initial post.  Unless articles have been edited to the point of not resembling the original, transmitting only the difference would definitely save bandwidth.  It may be more computationally intensive, but I can't think of a scenario where transmitting less that the whole article would take more bandwidth than transmitting the whole article.the1physicist 04:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative 1.0 Idea 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Cleanup for a discussion of our article cleanup backlog, which is currently growing at a rate of about 1,000 articles a month (out of 2,000 cleanup requests per month). -- Beland 04:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup request vs. fill rate 

message: After dealing with the constant deluge of vandalism at George W. Bush, a few users and myself decided to create Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy as a way to combat this problem. Titoxd wondered if this might assist Wikipedia in Pushing to 1.0, which I believe it might. While there are issues that could be improved, the baseline of it would keep articles more or less stable, and keep bad things from being posted by new users to high profile pages. Very rarely does massive shock vandalism take place on less popular articles, simply because there's noone there to revert it. We're spending too much time reverting content on George W. Bush and not enough time writing. If you could help, or offer any comments, it would be greatly appreciated. To 1.0 and beyond! -Mysekurity 06:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection? 

message: With or without controversy, this sort of thing will inspire derision that will cripple it before it gets going.  --VKokielov 05:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain what you are referring to, and why do you think it will inspire derision? If you are referring to the WP 1.0 project as a whole, that is in fact now really getting going. Walkerma 06:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A warning 

message: Would authors from Wikipedia be paid royalties like they deserve for the time they invested in Wikipedia once it is published?
:As far as I know, no one owns Wikipedia.  When you make contributions, you release ownership of them (assuming you're not adding copyrighted material, which is not allowed).  Also, please sign your contributions with four tildes (~~~~) and add new sections at the bottom of a page.the1physicist 04:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that nobody owns Wikipedia is incorrect. Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation that is a non-profit foundation under US tax law. See also http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I actually meant the content itself, but thanks for the info.the1physicist 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Royalties

message: Its almost 2006. where is version 1.0? Wikipedia is getting IMMENSE bad press. 1.0 is needed! Where is it!
TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air  11:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean you haven't finished it yet? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the recent Nature article, the new user-based assessments will be tested early next year, take a look at this meta page and the WikiSort subproject of the WP 1.0 team.  Jimbo also mentions the "stable" versions of articles getting under way. Meanwhile I and others are spending several hours a week on this stuff, but we are only a handful of people.  My opinion is that we will have a beta testing version by around September 2006, assuming more people get involved.  I couldn't have put it better than Jmabel, please speed things along by joining us and signing up for one of the four subprojects! Cheers, Walkerma 05:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tastemyhouse on the paramount importance of getting to 1.0. Why is there no big banner on the main page to tell people you're working on this and to request for assistance? I don't think most visitors are even aware of it. Piet 15:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The publication of Wikipedia 1.0 is still many months away.  We need to get things in order before we  appeal to the wider Wikipedia community, otherwise things will be an uncoordinated mess.  Also, there are people on Wikipedia who disagree with the idea of an offline version, and our talk page will get bombarded with objections all over again.  We are at present in "Phase 1", namely trying to identify decent articles.  This phase will be very drastically affected when the WikiSort system comes on stream (supposedly very soon), currently we don't know exactly how things will work out.  A lot also depends on whether WP:GA and WP:Stable get accepted as policy - if both of these could be extremely useful in supplying us with decent versions of articles, especially if used in combination.  Fairly soon I think we will need to start on "Phase 2", I will post something soon on this on the Editorial team talk page.  Once we reach a milestone such as "2000 articles identified as suitable for WP1.0" we should perhaps post something on the Signpost. So in summary, I agree that we need publicity, but we need to have our ducks in a row first.  Please join us, and help us get those ducks lined up!  Please sign up for one of the four subprojects and help us. Thanks, Walkerma 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. I'm on my way. Piet 08:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is 1.0? 

message: For those of you interested in publishing an offline Wikipedia snapshot,  validating articles or moving towards Wikipedia-1.0, I have documented the quite successful efforts of the German team at German Wikipedia. AxelBoldt 01:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offline publication efforts of German Wikipedia documented 

message: If we want to start pulling out articles that we are pretty sure that should be used, perhaps templates could be put on archived pages that would be small and unintrusive, such as:
0.5
and
1.0
to indicate that the article meets either 0.5 or 1.0 standards. -AtionSong 01:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this in practice, although the basic idea is a very good one indeed. I see one problem with the 0.5/1.0 standard. When I studied all the discussions for this project in detail, I found that the 0.5 and 1.0 standards seemed ambiguous, and there was some confusion about exactly what they meant.  I also noted that no assessments at all were done using this system over a period of about 9 months. Therefore when we needed to assess articles I proposed the use of this assessment system instead, since this method has been used successfully elsewhere.  We have since done all of the Core Topics assessments this way, as well as the Work via WikiProjects article listings such as this one.  Walkerma 06:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The benefit of your idea as I see it is that we would have an easy list of all 0.5 or all 1.0 articles.  It would also give an indication to the reader that "this article meets such and such standard." A problem with it is that it rather duplicates the FA and GA tags already in use. The GA people took a lot of flak at the start for putting their template on talk pages, people disparagingly called it a "barnstar for articles". I think we might get a lot of flak for duplicating the existing tags.  Roughly speaking, our A-Class corresponds to the GA standard, though a few GAs are closer to B-Class. (We will probably plunder the GA list for suitable articles at some point, BTW)  If you can see a way round this problem, let us know, it would be a useful addition. Walkerma 06:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A very similar idea to this one  was just suggested over at the Work via WikiProjects subproject of WP1.0.  It refers to this assessment scheme that I mentioned before, and more specifically only to B-Class articles, which do not typically reach the GA or FA standard.  Is this version of AtionSong's idea a more viable one? Or do people prefer the 0.5/1.0 system?  Any comments/suggestions, folks? Walkerma 06:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just An Idea 

message: Hi,
I'm in Toronto, Canada. I want to distribute a CD-based version of Wikipedia for free to urban schools. Poor students need a free Encyclopedia -- while many may have some sort of Windows based computer at home, quite a number don't have the money to pay for the internet. Additionally the schools and libraries can install this on their computers and save on bandwidth fees. As well, a condensed version can be distributed with laptops from the One Laptop Per Child Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_laptop)
I have read through this thread and really it will be quite simple to create a CD that works on most computers.
1. The CD will be in iso9660 format.
2. Each article be in standard html format, with multimedia in a subfolder for each article.
3. A third-party table of contents and searchable index program will be used. For example Macrmedia Robo Info does a decent job and produces an html-based interface that is redistributable and royalty-free.
Please comment here, and/or email me at at rick@cybernomics.net
Amigaguy 17:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Rick, producing a free paper/CD/DVD version to help poorer folks is one of the goals of this project.  Your proposals look to be in line with our plans. We are well into our initial phase of validating/assessing articles, and so we will be starting to plan the layout in the next couple of months, I expect.  Please join us and help get the work done as soon as possible! Walkerma 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Encyclopedia for Poor Students 

message: I am trying to gather consensus on a "roadmap to publication" for WP:1.0, please take a look at this discussion and leave your comments there (not here!). I am hoping that this consensus will guide us the rest of the way. Thanks, Walkerma 19:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roadmap to publication 

message: I'm interested in feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"

message: Hi! I strongly suggest that the DVD should contain software so that errors can be reported back to a standard email address, if they are spotted when reading. This could massively help to clean up the encyclopedia after the release of 1.0. Of course, people could simply send an email describing the problem, but it's much easier to have a one-click interface that does it, *and* it tells us where exactly is that error (i.e. a diff with correction or a line number/context where the error is). Hope we implement this feature! Msoos 21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why create a second system of editing? If users have access to email, chances are they also have the ability to come online and edit normally. —Pengo 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggestion sounds like a good idea to me.  The version on the CD will differ from the online version.  I wouldn't see it as a second system of editing, merely a system of reporting.  Many people I know are unwilling to edit Wikipedia, but they might well click on a link that says "report an error to Wikipedia." Walkerma 07:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting errors 

message: I'll start with this: I think 1.0 is a brilliant idea, I can't wait till we're finally there. Wikipedia is foremost about free knowledge, so in any format 1.0 will be able to do that. But Wikipedia is also about being a dynamic, constantly improving source. This suggestion is way before it's needed, but I want to make it now in case I forget; forgive me if this is ridiculously obvious or has already been said before.
The suggestion is: on any electronic version of Wikipedia 1.0, most obviously, there should be a direct link to the online Wikipedia article (it can be labelled "suggest improvement"). The main idea though is this: there should be a system to update the pages stored with newer versions online that have been marked out as stable. The CD/DVD should come with a bit of (updatable) software that checks the online articles automatically. These stability markers would be present anyway as part of the creation of Wikipedia 1.1. If it finds one, the software will download the newer version to the hard-drive, and the software will re-reference that article title from the CD/DVD-stored version to the hard-drive version. This will effectively create, between 1.0 and 1.1, thousands of 1.0/1.1 intermittent versions, or in other words keep people as up-to-date as possible with Wikipedia quality articles. When 1.1 is ready for release, installing the new CD/DVD will wipe the hard-drive stored versions and the process starts again until 1.2. I don't know if I explained that well but you probably get the drift. This will effectively mean that getting 1.0 will entail getting every Wikipedia after it - but that's good, right?
The second suggestion refers only to a paper encyclopedia, which I think is more exciting. Publishing in paper I think would really get people to respect Wikipedia as a referencable source. To keep the paper version Wiki - a very simple idea - publish it with a small box after each article entitled "Notes" - a space for the reader to write in. -- Alfakim --  talk  02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea for 1.0: keeping it Wiki 

message: Lots of new ideas just made by me that may interest you, and those interested in the project of creation of Wikipedia CD/DVD, and the need to better patrol the contents, work better in teams with supervizors, and enforce the copyright and national legal restrictions.
These new concepts concerns ALL Mediawiki projects, not just those hosted by the Fundation and not just Wikipedia.
See the discussion just started here:
m:Wikipedia on CD/DVD#Concepts for a dedicated "MediaWiki" client application with live update and patrolling tools.
Most probably a new great project to build.
verdy_p 12:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concepts for a dedicated "MediaWiki" client application with live update and patrolling tools