Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 Information & Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 Links at HealthHaven.com

Wikipedia 1.0; Projects (talk)(FAQ)
	WP 1.0 bot list; (talk) — (stats)
	Selection bot — (talk); Version 0.7 bot selection; VersionIDs — 0.7 Badwords; Version 0.7 feedback
	IRC channel (IRC)
	Release criteria
	Review team (FAQ)
	Version 0.8 release; (manual selection) (t); (Nominations) (t); [You can help]
	"Selection" project (Talk); 2008 schools selection;
	CORE TOPICS; CORE SUPPLEMENT; Core topics - 1,000; (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
	TORRENT (Talk)
	"Selection" project for kids ((t))
	Schools project (Talk)\|
	WORK VIA WIKI; PROJECTS (talk)
	Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
	Static content subcom.

See Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Test Version for active or completed release version projects.

For general information on English snapshots of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Snapshots

The purpose of this page is to focus effort on how to achieve the proposed static (paper/CD/DVD) versions of Wikipedia and how to produce a validated selection of Wikipedia articles, called Wikipedia 1.0. All activities are coordinated through the editorial team, which is open to all Wikipedia editors. Items shown in italics are currently active areas for the project.

Agreed principles of Wikipedia 1.0:

A 'validated' set of articles (Standard unspecified)
These articles would be suitable for release in print, CD and DVD.
The process of validation and making ready for publication will not affect the existing wiki process for creating and amending articles, other than flagging specific versions of articles as being of a certain standard.

Requirements:

Some method of validating articles and assessing these using these criteria or something similar. (NOW DONE)
Validation and assessment of suitable articles.
Discussion and agreement on the scope for DVD and paper versions.
Some mechanism within the software for easy access to the last stable version. (See Wikipedia:Stable versions).
Some method of amending articles so they are suitable for publication.
A set of standards: see: Grading scheme
- B-Class: Usable articles (previously called the Wikipedia 0.5 standard)
- FA and A-Class: Featured articles, or approaching FA (previously called the Wikipedia 1.0 standard)
- Extension standard required for electronic publication (CD/DVD)
- Extension standard required for a paper publication

Note on publishing

All published articles should normally be based on either the usable (B-Class) or featured (FA/A-Class) standard. When topics are considered highly important, or a key part of a set, decent Start-Class articles may be included. However, due to the requirements of publishing there will need to be extension standards for electronic and paper publications. For instance, Mandriva requires us to remove all fair-use images for legal reasons for their intended DVD release of Wikipedia.

[edit] Publishing history

From the English Wikipedia we have seen the following releases so far:

2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, an April 2006 release of around 2000 articles, organized by SOS Children's Villages. Suitable for children.
Wikipedia:Version 0.5, an April 2007 release of around 2000 articles selected by the WP:1.0 editorial team. Published by Linterweb, it includes the Kiwix search engine.
2007 Wikipedia Selection for Schools , a selection of 4600 articles aimed mainly at children. Released in May 2007.

[edit] Related pages

Wikipedia:Editing Weekend
Wikipedia:Flagged revisions
Wikipedia:Good articles
Wikipedia:Pushing to validation
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team
Wikipedia:WikiReader & Meta:WikiReader - WikiReaders are collections of articles from Wikipedia on a certain topic, in the form of PDFs published for download and intended to be printed, and also to be sold in printed form.
Category:Wikipedia editorial validation
Category:Wikipedia featured content

[edit] Historical debate on the mailing lists

There has been a number of interesting debates on the mailing lists about Wikipedia 1.0 in 2003 when the idea was first seriously raised. The points raised are still very relevant: