Wikipedia talk:Pushing to 1.0/Archive 2

message: I haven't voted on the suggestion that recycled materials be used, because I'm afraid we'd need to defer consideration of such specifics until we're closer to having the content ready.  I endorse the concept, though.  My vote is "At the appropriate time, investigate the production options then available and consider environmental impacts as one important factor in making a choice." JamesMLane 20:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental issues

message: This page seems to suggest that we have been "Pushing To 1.0" for over a year, but have made no discernable progress. What is happening to this project? Adam 06:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, but the original hypothetical date of "December 31st, 2004" is looking a little optimistic ;-) — Matt 16:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the progress might be viewed another way: Jimbo has suggested that the infrastructure that is currently in place (Categories, etc.) can get us to 1.0 (see above) Ancheta Wis 14:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What's happening

message: I've been bold and created the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. You're all invited. :) Maurreen 08:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1.0 Editorial Team

message: Frankly, Maurreen et al. I think you are starting at the wrong place. Have any publishers shown interest in taking on this project?  What sort of protection is there regarding copyright infringement?  How many volumes/pages/articles do you envision using in an offline variant?  How will it be maintained? Suddenly a whole load of excellent WP editors will be involved in polishing and repolishing WP offline variants - which will detract from the main project.
If you are sure it is a good idea to go for an offline version, it may be better to set up a distinct wiki for that purpose.  It is quite possible that the powers-that-be would be willing to hand over a history-culled clone as a starting point - which can then be culled to meet offline requirements.
However, to me the arguments for a paper WP are flimsy at best. Printed paper costs more than electrons - if we wish to get WP to third world countries, how about introducing WP cafes? It would cost about the same.  Oh sorry, and just how many publishers distribute to the masai mara? At what cost? Who gets to pay?  Also - the other arguments are weak. It's like saying we should have a carved rock version of WP - because carved rock doesn't burn, whereas paper does - and here there is a page for editors of the carved rock wikipedia -- Noble Editors of Carved Rock Wikipedia.
Funding - WP needs more funding just for WP, let alone an offline WP (based on the fact that WP decided against a publisher) - print costs, distribution.  Or is this some great paper/pulp project just to burn more energy for no purpose whatsoever?
IMHO by the time that WP offline is ready, the issues concerning internet availability will not be there. Even Somalia has good telecoms and internet access, and it hasn't had a government in a decade. WP being free means there is no corruption, no bribes, no middlemen, no marketing, no trouble. It will always be easier for individuals to read WP online in Somalia than it will to buy a book/CD/etc.
Regardless, further up this page are 3 reasons given for having an offline WP.
 1. Because they don't have Internet access.
 2. Because using a book is quicker than waiting for their computer to boot
 3. A version they can trust not to have been recently vandalized.
Well, here are my answers to this.
1. Internet access is progressively becoming available to everyone globally, in case you hadn't noticed. By the time we get to WP-book, every country will have publically available internet access at cheap rates and with good bandwidth. Most first world countries now have free internet at public libraries.  Try talking to a librarian about the rationale for putting WP onto a book format.
2. Most computers don't need booting anymore. Most individuals put their computer to sleep, and dialup is a dodo argument as DSL availability increases. By the time a nominal WP1 hit the shelves, it would be a year out of date, have less than 5% of the WP articles (going on the 75k article mention above), and will have cost someone a huge amount to produce - be subject to the most heinous copyright examination for it's entire life, and would have to be reworked just to keep it up to date.
3. Vandalism comes in two flavours.  Easy vandalism - eg "BOB LOVES YOU" is worked around by most readers looking through the article history, or merely ignored. The second form of vandalism - deliberate bias / POV is deep and often reflects sociopolitical differences of opinion. Does maurreen et al. believe that one group of editors can 'rise above' the sociocultural biases that are necessary for a global publication?  Such a cadre of editors smells of elitism at it's best.  In one sense the only real way of being able to justify which articles should make it into an offline subset is to look at the 75,000 articles that have received most editorial attention and views.  The very ones that have most edit wars, POV disputes, vandals (of both sorts), etc.
Ah ah.. Rant off. (20040302 13:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to March 2, 2004's objections to point one: People who use cyber-cafes to get online in Third world countries pay by the hour for internet access.  This is a bummer when trying to research a paper.  Having a computer at home with a DVD would make Wiki more convenient.  Also, people with computers at home often times don't have dial up access to the internet; either a house with one phone line everyone shares, or they're college students who can't justify the $10 a month (or more in 3rd world countries) that would cost.  To say "Oh, everyone who has a computer has a 'net connection" in insensitive to many people's situtation.  And, oh, a DVD is a good deal faster to read than the kind of 'net you get in many Third world countries.  Heck, said DVD is a good deal faster than Wikipedia from a OC-12 connection to the internet when it gets heavily loaded.  So, to say a DVD of Wiki has no value because "everyone has internet" is incorrect. Samboy 14:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmmmm

message: If we use major.minor version numbers, how would we decide when to bump the major version number, and when to only change the minor? Goplat 20:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I figure we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Maurreen 06:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I think we should not jump to 1.0 - start out with 0.1, because 1.0 means it's a finished product, and WP is a work in progress.  134.117.137.157 21:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Version numbers