User talk:That David Marshall

Any and all comments to the proposal made on the user page are welcome. David Marshall 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons-Based Editorial Review[edit]

I think this is a fine idea, David. I imagine you're thinking of something like the New York Times Magazine or Harper's. A solid combination of popular culture, literary, political and popular scientific writing would take most advantage of Wikipedia's userbase, but I'd recommend a monthly rather than weekly format (Or, given the web medium, something more akin to Slate) What sort of review process would you propose for the stories? Elijahmeeks 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that a weekly format would be ambitious in any content area but, if we could interest enough people and divide them into teams, we could schedule article writing timelines two, three or four weeks in advance. If not enough people were interested, then a monthly schedule would be a good default position. All contributions would have to be approved by an editor before they appeared as a part of the weekly/monthly publication. Once approved, the contributions would appear under the bylines of those who had contributed, allowing authors, artists, designers, and other participants to establish and build individual credibility for the work which they would be doing. That David Marshall 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote would be for a format resembling Salon or Slate, given that those seem to operate best in the online medium (And gives more flexibility for the kind of contributors that would come from a Wikipedia-oriented world. I would be interested in helping, and think it's a natural wikimedia project. Elijahmeeks 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing[edit]

I see you say you will release under a CC license. How do you propose getting around the compatibility issues of the GDFL and the CC licenses? Steve block Talk 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have correctly identified one of several reasons why I wrote, ". . .we will need dedicated server space and a group with enough technical skills to build the wiki and all the bolt-ons". A different wiki environment will be required for this project and its content would be released under one of the CC licences. That David Marshall 02:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear enough. I meant how will you be reusing Wikipedia content? Steve block Talk 11:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's my fault for not making it clear that I would not intend to reuse any Wikipedia content. All content would be created in the wiki and be original to the project. Although the core factual content of the material produced would have to meet criteria of verifiability, the authors would be free to produce their own analysis and reasoned conclusions, to editorialise and write opinion pieces, and generally to produce a range of material on both notable and non-notable topics for the entertainment of the readership. That David Marshall 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]