Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet News

Printing Wikipedia 253

Posted by CmdrTaco from the where-have-i-heard-that-idea-before dept.
rtnair writes "Entries from Wikipedia, the popular free online encyclopedia written and edited by Internet users, may soon be available in print for readers in the developing world, founder Jimmy Wales said on Monday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Printing Wikipedia More

Printing Wikipedia

Comments Filter:

  • Mis-information? (Score:5, Funny)

    by phase_9 ( 909592 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:15AM (#13922631) Homepage
    Great, so now people in developing countries will learn the truth... or just read lots of entires which have been "vandalized" with the word "boobies!"

    • Re:Mis-information? (Score:5, Funny)

      by PornMaster ( 749461 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:18AM (#13922646) Homepage
      Haven't you ever read National Geographic? They already have boobies there!
    • Great, so now people in developing countries will learn the truth... or just read lots of entires which have been "vandalized" with the word "boobies!"

      Stop being so damn cynical. I personally think Slashdot would be much improved if it were possibly to edit and improve any material on the site, including comments. This would allow POOOP!!!!! HA HA PORTLAND SCHOOL IS GAY insertion of constructive criticism.

  • Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SYSS Mouse ( 694626 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:16AM (#13922634) Homepage
    You know, "free" knowledge in no longer limited to developed world, where they have access to something called internet.
  • With 800,000 articles its going to be one heluva long book.

  • Another problem solved (Score:5, Funny)

    by LaughingCoder ( 914424 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:17AM (#13922640)
    So now we have someplace to send all of those out of work encyclopedia salesmen! They can hawk wikipedia in the third world! I can see them trapsing about, lugging a satchel full of CDs. "You don't want to deprive your children from having access to these wonderful volumes!"

  • Problems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by springbox ( 853816 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:19AM (#13922652)
    I like Wikipedia, but it usually ends up being a good idea to double check the information presented there some times. It certainly has some errors (like the "prant" statement for the Mathematica hello world program), but if you present this in book form to a thrid world country, which I'm assuming doesn't have internet access because of this, then it would be way too easy for people to take everything inside of it as error free facts.

    • True, but not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot@keir[ ]ad.org ['ste' in gap]> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:43AM (#13922776)
      Just yesterday Iw as reading an article on homeostasis [wikipedia.org], and ran into some obviously erronious material. The article had been defaced (one point even had "ALEX IS GAY" in huge letters"). So, I went in to edit the article, but the copy in the edit tab did not have the errors. At first I thought it was some kind of bug, so I refreshed the article to try to edit it again. To my surprise, it had already been fixed.

      Now, I can not say for sure how long it had been defaced before I got there, but that experience left me with the impression that, while you do need to be careful, there are lots of people looking after Wikipedia.

      And just to be frank... when you say but it usually ends up being a good idea to double check the information presented there some times, I hope you realize that that should be true with *any* source of information. A critical reader should never trust any one source. Every source has bias, and even if it is 100% factual, every source presents the material with its own slant on the facts.

      Of course wikipedia sould neve rbe your sole source, but neither should Britannica, or any other single source.

      • Re:True, but not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)

        by interiot ( 50685 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @09:27AM (#13923051) Homepage
        That was the RC patrol [wikipedia.org] at work there (RC = recent changes). There is some percentage of vandalism that stays around for a while though, so yes, it's doubly important to triple check facts. (for instance, somebody completely made up a soccer player [wikipedia.org], and the page ended up sticking around for several months before someone did a little more googling than normal, and found out that the player clearly didn't exist).

        • Re:True, but not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Kiaser Wilhelm II ( 902309 ) <slashpanada@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:13AM (#13923902) Journal
          The problem I have with wikipedia is that there is clearly a bias amongst both the users and editors.

          A friend of mine used to run a popular local BBS. I helped to write the article about it, because I wasn't associated with it, my perspective was a little more "NPOV" than his. Then, a day later, some users get mad, because of the controversial opinions that were associated with this BBS and puts it up for VfD. The VfD wasn't going well for the article (most people were voting to delete because they never heard of it, the primary chief cop out reason). Then an editor comes along and decides its a candidate for "Speedy Deletion" and it gets deleted pretty quickly. The reason was non-notability.

          This is rediculous because, as you state, a non-existant soccer player gets ZERO questions because its not controversial or expresses any opinions against the grain of Wikipedia groupthink. Considering how popular the BBS was back in the day, the arguments were totally rediculous. The editors and users voting on the VfD were citing cross-links in Google as a guide for "notability" of something that existed before the Internet was a mainstream (or even something that you or me could access). Then you have to also note the number of other articles that are totally pointless in terms of cultural relevance to anything - less than the BBS in question was.

          Until Wikipedia fixes issues like these, I will never take them seriously. Yes, I have tried to talk to some of the higher ups, they are no better. They just call you a "troll" and ignore you.

          Wikipedia is the perfect example of pitifully poor organizational structure marred by populist tendencies and groupthink.
          • "rediculous ... rediculous"
            Stop that.

          • Re:True, but not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)

            by interiot ( 50685 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:02PM (#13924330) Homepage
            This is rediculous because, as you state, a non-existant soccer player gets ZERO questions

            Actually, the non-existant soccer player got unanimously deleted as soon as it was discovered. I simply saved a copy because it was one of the more unique examples of vandalism I'd seen (most are almost exactly the same).

            VfD's can be stressful, especially for new editors. It's hard to not take it as a personal afront.

            What's the BBS, by the way?

            Yes, there are a lot of gray areas in terms of what should be included in Wikipedia. Notability [wikipedia.org] is especially contentious.

            Then you have to also note the number of other articles that are totally pointless in terms of cultural relevance to anything - less than the BBS in question was.
            Well, the most extreme examples don't count. AfD/VfD is sometimes a bit of a random process, and you never know if something will be kept or not. So sometimes things aren't deleted, or aren't deleted right away, or, better yet, aren't merged [wikimedia.org] yet, and current editors often disagree with previous precedent.
            Wikipedia is the perfect example of pitifully poor organizational structure marred by populist tendencies and groupthink.

            Wikipedia is also different from things like Slashdot and such because the goal is to have one big, cohesive database of human knowledge. On Slashdot, comments are only read for a couple days. On Wikipedia, I might think something should be phrased a certain way, but someone else might think it would be better phrased another way, and we have to actually settle those disagreements.

            The fact that everyone has to cooperate on Wikipedia a lot more means that things won't always go my way. And that's not something that will ever change.

      • Re:True, but not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

        by haggar ( 72771 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @09:50AM (#13923219) Homepage Journal
        Do you realy believe that edits like "LINUX IS TEH GHEY" are what is the problem? Those that have vandalism written all over them arenot a problem at all. The ones that are a problem, are the edits that you have not even noticed. And the inaccuracies which you have not noticed. For example, in that article on homeostasis, "stasis" is erroneously implied to be a prefix, which it is not. I found this in 15 seconds. If I spent more time, I would find dozens of minor inaccuracies like this, and then would have to spend some time correcting them, but I digress.

        Vandalism which is hard to spot is the apparently correct information, throwin in together with a bunch of irrelevant but correct edits. Those you won't notice, unless you have been maintaining the article from it's inception.
        • Show me another error free encyclopedia.
          • Ah, yes, don't let the best be the enemy of the good.

            All human activity includes the possibility of error. That doesn't mean that we completely abandon error as a criterion.

            A work that is jam-packed with deliberate or easily avoidable errors has less value than a work that has been carefully and professionally reviewed to detect and prevent error.

            We shouldn't have to prove that something can be error-free before we say errors are a bad thing.

        • For example, in that article on homeostasis, "stasis" is erroneously implied to be a prefix, which it is not.

          Could you specify where? I don't see anywhere in the article where it is even *used* as a prefix.

          About the closest thing to this would be where they explain the etymology of the word, but even there they clearly explain its roots, and nowhere do they infer that stasis is a prefix, suffix, or any other modifier..

      • Like any OSS project, Wiki will soon reach a point where some articles are reviewed and frozen--for the 99% of the stuff in there that isn't current events, this will be pretty easy. (Well, not *easy*, but... you know... doable.) Then updates will not go right into the live page but rather to a "sugestions for the next build" page. Then they'll probably change the structure so articles default to displaying the frozen page, with a "Click here for current version - caution, may be inaccurate" link leading to

    • Re:Problems (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 )
      then it would be way too easy for people to take everything inside of it as error free facts.
      You mean, just like they do with traditional encyclopedias? These are not error free either.
      • You mean, just like they do with traditional encyclopedias? These are not error free either.

        No, but the Britannica does have a tradition of publishing signed articles by contributers as significant as Einstein and Freud.

        It believes in the vigor and intelligence of prose that is not written by a collective.

    • Re:Problems (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dslauson ( 914147 )
      If I were going to take on a project of this magnitude, I would freeze a snapshot of the current Wikipedia so that the version we were editing was not constantly changing, and then I would get some people (either paid or volunteer) to go through and do some fact checking and editing. Sure, that would be costly and time-consuming, but with all the critics WikiPedia has amassed, they really can't afford for something like this to be a half-baked disaster. It's a bad idea to publish print copies of these art
    • I have found wikipedia to be a much better source of refined search terms than my old method of poking through usenet postings for same. as for the actual information in the Wiki? only a fool would trust it as his only source.

  • Printed Wiki (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pointdexter ( 89416 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:19AM (#13922655) Homepage
    Presumaby each copy will be written in pencil and supplied with an eraser?

  • Cost and earnings (Score:3, Interesting)

    by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:20AM (#13922663) Homepage
    How much would it cost? Just the price to break even?
    And if they make a profit, how will it be divided? How will they give it back to the community that wrote it?

    I think it's best to keep the cost as low as possible, so break-even plus a tiny percentage. Where the tiny percentage (the profit) will be invested into the wiki directly.

  • ooooohhhh gooodie! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Average_Joe_Sixpack ( 534373 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:22AM (#13922678)
    Personally I can't wait to get the hardcopy of the Robocop [wikipedia.org] disertation.

  • Printed?! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 )
    may soon be available in print for readers in the developing world

    I've never read anything so stupid in all my life! Surely they'd need a computer to view the article on the web before they can even print it!

    Does anyone else see the irony?
    • I'd love to assume that the +Funny mods are accurate in assuming you're being amusing, but it's too deadpan for me not to snag. Consider me successfully trolled if so...

      Anyway, if you're being serious, here's a serious answer: wikipedia already has printing functionality; there's a print page link on every page, including the not-so-useful ones like lists and categories. The point of the article is that for those that don't have computers, paper versions will be made by printing companies and those made av

    • Re:Printed?! (Score:2, Informative)

      by somersault ( 912633 )
      er... when it says available in print, it means ready printed. Like a magazine. Surely if they had a computer they could already print out a wikipedia article. Do you see the irony?

      • Surely if they had a computer they could already print out a wikipedia article.

        From the article:

        He said content from the Web site may also be burned onto CDs and DVDs

        ... well, they better have a computer if they want the DVD version - I don't think its going to work in that older technological relic - the VCR.

        may soon be available in print

        Then again. probably not. When you see a quote like this:

        "We are talking to several agents and publishers about what they would be interested in," Wales said of th

  • A better idea... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ledow ( 319597 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:23AM (#13922682) Homepage
    I think that something that Wikipedia needs more urgently are -stable and -current version of the data. Have a working copy that anyone can edit, yes, and then on a completly seperate domain name, have the articles copied, checked for accuracy, cleaned up etc. and locked down. Thus, once an article reaches maturity, it's static so it's much easier to refer to it from websites and other citations, the quality is more reliable, it's kid-safe so schools etc. can use it as a reference, the accuracy can be checked and wikipedia doesn't keep it's reputation among academics which is usually expressed in terms of monkeys and typewriters.
    • Excellent idea - there should be a "stable" and "development" version of each page.

      What wikipedia needs is a few good "benevolent dictators" like Linux has that can create stable versions of articles. Perhaps all wikipedia editors should be able to vote for, say, half a dozen chief editors.
      • Considering that the english version of Wikipedia is adding over 1 new page every minute [wikipedia.org], there's no way that a small cabal of editors could properly filter everything.

        There is a small-ish group of editors [wikipedia.org] who have been voted on, and confirmed to be mature editors with a sizable edit history. And there are protected pages [wikipedia.org] which can only be edited by people in that group. However, page protection is intended to only be used sparingly.

        • Considering that the english version of Wikipedia is adding over 1 new page every minute, there's no way that a small cabal of editors could properly filter everything.

          But they wouldn't have to do everything, just the core info.

          • Re:A better idea... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by David Gerard ( 12369 ) <slashdot&davidgerard,co,uk> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:25AM (#13923490) Homepage
            The least-worst idea I've seen is a massively distributed article rating system — an editorial committee can't possibly scale (we've currently got about two Britannicas of text), but lots of people clicking "Rate this page" has a chance. Particularly as our readers currently outnumber our editors 50:1 or so.

            See Article validation feature [wikimedia.org] and En validation topics [wikimedia.org] - which would put a "Rate this page" tab at the top of every page. The feature is currently waiting on a version of the code [sourceforge.net] that won't overload the database if it's put into production ;-)

            See also my plan for 1.0 [wikipedia.org] (I dashed this off about a year ago and it's still the best working plan we have) and Category:Wikipedia 1.0 [wikipedia.org] (a bunch of writings on producing a stable version).

    • Re:A better idea... (Score:3, Informative)

      by interiot ( 50685 )
      Wikipedia has stated that no article will be locked down for reasons of maturity. Wikipedia is considering causing edits to be delayed, so that vandalism has a chance to be checked and removed before it's visible to everyone, but articles on Wikipedia will never be considered to be "finished".

      People who really need to refer to a solidifed version of a page can include the time of access in the reference (just as you'd do when using any webpage as a proper reference), or using a URL that points to a speci

      • I think it would be better to have a "maturity threshold value", which you can specify when browsing/searching wikipedia. That way, you could select a "Only Featured articles" if you wanted to see only the good articles or you could slide it to "Even stubs" if you wanted to see those almost unuseful stub articles.

        And btw, I think the printed wiki should print JUST the featured articles.
    • This already exists. Many organizations fork Wikipedia content for various reasons. Some just put up raw Wikipedia database content. Some prune for various flavors of "correctness". Some pull out everything but some specific areas that interest them.

      You are, of course, free to create your own "Wikipedia stable".

      However, the value proposition of Wikipedia is this: with thousands of people editing it constantly, you get more raw information on which to base your research.

      Having said that, I've rarely discover

  • It must be true... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ladybugfi ( 110420 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:23AM (#13922683)
    First we had "it must be true, I read it in a book somewhere", then we had "it must be true, I read it in the internet somewhere". Now we have come a full circle - it must be true since it is in a printed encyclopedia.

    I'm not a great supporter of disclaimers, but here I think it would serve well.

  • I assume they will use an "old" version (Score:4, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:23AM (#13922689)
    If this project is to avoid erroneous and vandal edits, it needs to use a well-reviewed version of each entry. Only entries that have been seen X times in the last Y days with no edits would be printable.

    And if they do use a stable version for printing, then the could offer that as a version for those that don't want beta entries. Entries with less than a certain viewer/edit ratio would be deemed "beta" and not show to people or coded as such.

    Wiki could even color-code the text by recency of edit. Readers would know which sections are too recent to trust and editor would see what's changed.

    • Only entries that have been seen X times in the last Y days with no edits would be printable.

      That's not a reliable indicator that the content of the entry is factually accurate, though. At best, it indicates that none of the recent viewers identified any errors. Depending on the expertise of the viewers, that could mean a lot or nothing; and since people more often read encyclopedia entries about things they DON'T know than about those they already know, I'd lean towards the latter.

  • Wouldn't it make more sense.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by teewurstmann ( 755953 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:25AM (#13922699) Homepage
    ... to invest in the development of that $100 computer that the MIT is developing (http://news.com.com/The+100+laptop+moves+closer+t o+reality/2100-1044_3-5884683.html [com.com])? By the time Wikipedia is printed, it will already be out of date. Maybe investing in cheap internet terminals and a couple of printers would make more sense...
    • By the time Wikipedia is printed, it will already be out of date.

      A few entries, yes, but most information does not become outdated that quickly. You can still pick up the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, and find a lot of information that is correct and relevant. If you freeze a part of Wikipedia onto paper, it's the same. Things like the date Germany invaded Poland, or the gravitational constant, don't change overnight.
      • You can still pick up the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, and find a lot of information that is correct and relevant. If you freeze a part of Wikipedia onto paper, it's the same

        Except for the "correct" and "relevant" parts.

        Things like the date Germany invaded Poland, or the gravitational constant, don't change overnight.

        Sadly, on Wikipedia such things can and do change overnight.

        TWW

    • No. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tjic ( 530860 )
      Computers break much more easilly than books do. Even when broken, books degrade gracefully.

      Computers require energy (at the very least, solar panels). Books do not.

      Computers, even the pie-in-the-sky, not-yet-delivered $100 ones that MIT is attempting to create, cost more than books. For one $200 computer, we could print up 20 $10 hardcover books.

      Computers overheat, choke on sand, and have moving parts. Books do not.

      We still have 500+ year old books around.

      How many 20 year old computers are still runnin
    • Does that computer come with a built in satellite modem and lifetime free internet access? Because if it doesn't I don't see how it solves the problem.
    • How will Wikipedia be out of date in comparison to that other encyclopedia whose contents can freely be redistributed - the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica?

      Most information does not get out of date quickly. That is especially true for data that is relevant to people who do not have internet access.

      This is a very good idea.

    • I would agree. Which is why the static page dumps I have gotten from the download site will not be going to the printer. Instead they are being processed for eventual use on a PDA or notebook (sans discussions, and graphics for now). I am not sure yet, but will probably choose either wik2dict (creates a compressed dict database) or Plucker to generate the portable Wikipedia.

      A version is available for download in the proprietary TomeRaider format, which can be read on Windows and Palm.

  • How long ... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... until we find Wikipedia articles in Google Print?

  • Great... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @08:34AM (#13922732)
    Now people in 3rd world countries all over the world will be able to know of the wonders of goatse [wikipedia.org].

  • Which third world? (Score:2, Informative)

    by tgv ( 254536 )
    Which third world would that precisely be? The one where they can read English and have enough money to buy an encyclopedia with mainly useless entries (Startrek anyone)? Does this third world happen to be located between Canada and Mexico?
  • I'm in the humanities so sometimes having my computer with me is well...distracting. I definitely don't rely on wikipedia as a primary source (more of a quick reference or a jumping off point), but often you get lost in wikipedia. What I'd like is an encyclopedia akin to an electronic dictionary. I dont know if this is possible or maybe I should just block every site except wikipedia.

  • Priorities? (Score:3)

    by Mr. Cancelled ( 572486 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @09:03AM (#13922892)
    Less than two weeks ago we heard about Wikipedia having some major quality issues [slashdot.org], and now we're talking about distributing it in print fashion to poor and developing nations?

    Shouldn't the content be corrected & verified before we start putting out hard copies of the data, which will be interpreted as "the truth" by whomever learns from these tomes?

    And really... how often can you use the term "tome" in a /. posting?
    • " Less than two weeks ago we heard about Wikipedia having some major quality issues [slashdot.org], and now we're talking about distributing it in print fashion to poor and developing nations?
      Shouldn't the content be corrected & verified before we start putting out hard copies of the data, which will be interpreted as "the truth" by whomever learns from these tomes?       "

      Why would we want to do that? Obviously, this is a scheme to make sure the developing world does not educate its children well.
      Sabo
  • Don't think the printed version will ever get beyond the word 'recursive' and the book will be _mighthy_ thick...

  • Defeating the purpose in one fell swoop. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kinglink ( 195330 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @09:10AM (#13922940)
    Wasn't the original idea of the site that you could have anyone edit the document and fix errors or add information. I understand we have trolls too but the purpose of the site was simply that.

    Now we have them trying to give this tool to foreign countries but first off it's a encyclopedia, no single book will hold a good enough amount of the knowledge anyways. But more importantly with in a year most of the information will have changed multiple times on that site.

    Hell the best thing about that site is if you search a current event you tend to get precise info even if the events have happened that day. That alone makes the site worthwhile, however the book will have none of these features and likely just become a normal encyclopedia. Sadly I have to say there's no reason for that. It's an encyclopedia that nerds wrote but from what I've seen it's not statistically better then a real encyclopedia. In fact because it's open to all to write it's statistically worse for the reader because there's no validation exception a public consesus.

    Why that's bad is easy, Public consesus tends to be less then 100 percent perfect. Salem Witch Trials, LA riots, and so on. There are leaders who watch over the site, but I still don't believe it to be worthwhile to take out all the uniquest features on that site and try to make a book out of it....

    Now a autoupdating PDA with the full information of the site? that'd be bitchin'....

  • Sometimes I feel wikipedia can't be fixed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by haggar ( 72771 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @09:25AM (#13923044) Homepage Journal
    I have just finished editing the nationalistic ramblings (disguised as "facts") in a wikipedia entry about a famous scientist and engineer, whose name shall stay secret. I know, however, that this nationalistic vandal will be back, do his edits and then I would have to do mine all over again. Except, at one point I will give up, because I will realize that it's pointless, and I don't have all the time in the world to maintain that entry and protect it from defacement.

    As a longtime and way too busy Wikipedia contributor, I say: let it die, or then do some extensive and expensive maintainance. Basically, it will have to resamble more the printed things which Slashdot users so like to deride.
    • Stop deleting my changes and I'll stop editing them back in again! ;)

    • Re:Sometimes I feel wikipedia can't be fixed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by interiot ( 50685 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @09:47AM (#13923192) Homepage
      I don't think vadanlism is so much of a problem, because that can be more or less easily removed by many different people. I think it's more of a problem that poor editing can bring down the content of Wikipedia overall. Someone who is both an expert in their field and also a great writer can post some brilliant prose, with subtle and precise meanings throughout, that accurately expresses the current consensus of experts in their field. And then someone else can come along and blow away all the subtle distinctions without knowing better. And it's somewhat difficult to remove the less experienced person's edits, because reverting well-intentioned edits can be very contentious unless you can clearly state why the new edits should be removed (which requires still more brilliant writing).
    • You shouldn't have to make your edits again, you can just revert to a version of the article before the defacement. It shouldn't take more than 30 seconds.

  • How many 3rd world countries has he been to? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wocky.jabber ( 927501 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @09:30AM (#13923074)
    In many so-called 3rd world countries like China, India, Thailand, internet access is available in many places so they don't need the printed Wikipedia. In places where internet access is not available, they are really too poor and too busy just staying alive to read Wikipedia. Waste of money. The money would be better spent providing a selected villages with internet access. Then they can get to read the real Wikipedia. Printing Wikipedia is going two steps backwards
  • Yeah, the English version of Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is going to be extremely useful in Botswana [cia.gov]. Last time I checked, Setswanese wasn't in Wikipedia's list of supported languages [wikipedia.org].

  • Wikipedia should move toward the open source model (Score:3, Interesting)

    by balls199 ( 648142 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:08AM (#13923366) Homepage
    I bet you're thinking "duh, they already do", but I don't think it really follows the open source model of development from my experience.

    In the open source model of development you have several levels of "contributers". (I probably missed a level or two)

    1. Maintainer
    2. Commiters
    3. Submitters
    4. Users

    These levels represent levels of trust, with the Maintainer the most trust worthy, and the Users being the least. Anything contributed by those with lower trust levels gets reviewed by the higher trust levels, and appropriate action is taken (either the change is accepted or rejected). If you do something to ruin that trust, you are forced down the levels by your peers.

    The only problem with this scheme in wikipedia is there will be more forking and competing articles. However, this can be mitigated in a similar fashion to what wikipedia is doing now with links at the top of articles linking to competing pages.

    If anyone is interested in setting up this kind of encyclopedia, or knows of one already in use out there, send me a link.
  • It just makes no sense to me, it's not like it's a static, unchanging entity.
  • They could give it a classic sounding name, something regal, like...say..."Britain". Then make it Latin sounding, "Britannica". Voilá! "Encyclopedia Britannica"

    Seriously, why bother with a print version of ANYTHING that is heavily cross indexed? One of the greatest things about digitized docs is the ability to do fast, complex, searches across the entire document. Having it in print reduces you to slogging through the very limited index. Plus there is the issue of having an entire shelf taken up

  • So many pages... (Score:5, Funny)

    by PhotoGuy ( 189467 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:35AM (#13923577) Homepage
    Wow...This will be a huge job for Google books to scan in...

  • Missing the point (Score:4, Funny)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:04AM (#13923798)
    The only virtue of Wikipedia at the moment is that, being online, at least it isn't a waste of paper. This plan undermines even that.

    TWW

  • I don't get it!!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by andrelix ( 873009 )
    OK, I just don't get this. I thought the power (and maybe the purpose) of the wiki was to allow for a dynamic document. Once printed, you are just a bad encyclopedia. Not to say that wiki is bad, but it is not necessarily proofed in quite the same way an encylopedia would be. Plus you loose the dynamics. Look at the *cough* Commander and Chief of the US, based on his "hard work" you need to constantly update his bio, not to mention the dictionary! I understand that we are all capitalists but this just

Slashdot Top Deals

C makes it easy for you to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes that harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg. -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Close