Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 2

message: I'm wondering about somehow putting up some standing notice that this team exists, for the benefit mainly of new users. But I have no idea about where might be most appropriate. Maurreen 03:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the project under the Community Portal under Things You Can do.  That should at least let Wikipedians know that we exist.  --Randy 02:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Maurreen 05:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Publicity

message: Today I created User:Maurreen/Basic topics to list a small selection of core topics. This could be useful, for instance, if someone is interested in our general goal but not our specific process. Maurreen 00:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic topics

message: * I think Culture is well-written, and decent as far as it goes, but do you really think it is comprehensive? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
::I agree. It's not nearly comprehensive. I've changed the project page to reflect that. Maurreen 07:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I thought the previous agreement on the 'Pushing to Wikipedia 1.0' page stated that the Wikipedia 0.5 Standard was to be classified as "usable articles".  --Randy 12:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Does [[Culture]] really meet the standard?

message: Why don't we start with some feartured articles, hoping most of those on User:Taxman/Featured articles with references problems will be 0.5 and the many of the rest may even make 1.0. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
:I like that. Btw, I've seen a list before of essential topics any encyclopedia should cover as a guide for those looking for an article to improve to featured status; IIRC the list came from the Simple English Wikipedia. Perhaps that list could be used here as well? However, I doubt all our featured articles should be in 1.0 — they are just too specific. Maybe on a DVD or one of those new fancy technologies it would be feasible, but if we're going to put this on a CD, I think we should cover only the most important subjects. Johnleemk | Talk 05:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the entire current English Wikipedia fit on a single CD-ROM anyway? J.K. 06:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 9, October 2004, the database was 170GB.  And that's just text, excluding images and multimedia.  If my math is correct, that would take 249 regular CD discs.  --Randy 22:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Identifying articles that meet these standards

message: Is it worthwhile producing one (or possibly more?) template that could be placed on a talk page, this would inform the 'regular' editors of said article about Wikipedia 1.0 and 0.5 standards, which they can then help to conform to, whilst increasing general awareness of the project itself. - Estel  (talk) 22:49, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not sure. ... One thing is that I'm not sure what the standards are. ... But it might be good to just put a note on the talk pages. Maurreen 09:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's first have a vote of some sort to see what the standards need to be and whether or not the proposed standards need to be revised or totally redone.  --Randy 18:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I don't remember where the level of "usable" originated, but I believe it was given in the context of four levels: VFD, cleanup, usable or feature-worthy.
The proposal for a 0.5 level seems inconsistent to me. "Must be factually accurate, comprehensive, and well-written" is a much higher level than "usable", especially given the context above.
The proposed additional requirements for the 1.0 level seem minor to me. Putting aside the "usable" part, it would be more difficult to go from 0.0 to 0.5 than from 0.5 to 1.0.  Maurreen 07:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards

message: If I haven't misinterpreted the discussion, the intent of the project is to produce a CD ROM version of the Wikipedia.  What is the Encyclopedia going to focus on?  Is it going to be a general sampling of Wikipean articles or will it be something really specific such as, (for the sake of conversation) The Wikipedian Encyclopedia of European History
:I think we had in mind something broad and general. Maurreen 09:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's broader than that. Yes, before going to CD-ROM would make sense we'd need to be up to this level, but the discussion is about getting all or (identifiable) parts of Wikipedia up to the standards where it is reasonable to use it as a reliable encyclopedic reference. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Providing Wikipedia in CD ROM version is a great plan. I see from my country's condition that Internet connection is not yet good and expensive for most of us. Would anybody like to answer these questions:
# will CD ROM version provide static HTML, i.e. users can browse articles directly with browser? (no need local Web server to be installed)
# how about the license of distribution? I hope it will be free in term of GPL itself.
I would like to write about this plan in my blog that covers IT for small organization, because it will be very important for us. -- Ikhlasul Amal 12:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: See also meta:Wikipedia on CD/DVD and . [[Regarding your second question: Most of the Wikipedia text (and I believe most of the images) are licensed under the GFDL license only. This means that the license of distribution will also have to be the GFDL. It's a free license (well, sufficiently free) and is similar to GPL. — Matt Crypto 13:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think any CD version would not need the Internet at all. Also, I'm not sure there is yet a plan, just some people working toward a goal. I think sometimes what we're doing has been overstated or misunderstood. Maurreen 16:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Regarding CD versions and "static HTML": I'm working on a piece of software designed to enable Wikipedia-on-a-CD, and I've found that the "static HTML" approach is infeasable for any significant number of articles, due to two major problems. The first is that CDs have a "block size" of 2048 bytes; the size of any file on-disc is rounded up to the next nearest multiple of 2048. The second is that storing complete HTML copies of each article wastes a significant amount of space through redundancy. However, by using a hybrid compression technique, and a cross-platform miniature webserver that reconstitutes the webpages on the fly, it's possible to fit the entire english wikipedia (minus media) on a single CD with room to spare, while still maintaining excellent performance. Andrew Rodland 04:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, sounds spiffy. Maurreen 05:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I've removed these two proposed standards:
** Extension standard required for electronic publication (CD/DVD)
** Extension standard required for a paper publication
They are incompatible with the wikipedia.org legal situation, which cannot produce works for CD or print without producing legal liability for wikipedia.org and the Wikimedia Foundation. The normal online protections (the CDA] and OCILLA) are not available for CD or print works and preparing a print or CD version. Those doing the selecting and editing would clearly be legally liable for any content they included, regardless of whether they produced it themselves originally. For that reason, I recommend that nobody without copyright and other legal risks insurance participate in any project with a print or CD target. Being bankrupted by legal action is a substantial risk for anyone participating in the activity. 
What would be reasonably legally safe is tagging based on quality metrics with no specific print or CD target. Anyone else could then use those metrics to select articles for any arbitrary target they desire, with only those selecting for non-online targets being liable. Jamesday 03:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed standards incompatible with Wikipedia.org 

message: Hi!  I was a member of this project for a short while in January, and then life just got too busy for me to really keep up.  Anyway, I'm back (for now) and ready to get going again.
I've skimmed most of the discussion that has taken place since January, but I have a question: Is there a list, a definitive list, of articles that will go into this hard copy Encyclopedia?  And is there a discussion page for debating whether or not certain articles are 1.0 worthy?*Kat* 05:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Hi, welcome back.
#Not as far as I know.
#Not that I know of.
:I've been working a little via Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive on collaborating on core articles. Maurreen 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm back... 

message: I think the way things are done currently for this project cannot work. There is just no way we can democratically select individual articles with a lenghty comment period for something like this. The project has been ongoing for almost a year and going no where, with a few dozens articles done every month, it would take years to get to a decent number. What needs to be done is select a range of topics, vote on that, and then include everything that falls into them, having a team of people check them out one by one to make sure a set of standards are applied (no grammatical error, no PoV information, no fair-use or worse images, etc) and then freeze that particular version for the DVD/book. Elfguy 17:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Way this is currently done

message: ::Dear all,
:Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.
:Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.
:The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29
:The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.
:We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.
:Best regards,
:Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza
:I sterbinski 00:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)