Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely
how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and
kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated
user suggestions like they were *threats*. I just read a Paul Graham
article which contains
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:26, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely
how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and
kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated
user suggestions
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia?
With more Wikipedias.
This is my idea for Wikipedia:
on 4/7/11 2:26 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely
how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and
kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated
user suggestions like they
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
-MuZemike
On 4/7/2011 1:37 PM, Fajro wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example,
started to form wikis of any sort, but
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing
so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example,
started to form wikis of any sort,
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a
'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and
inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news
network. And if it was glossy and facile enough, plenty of people
would probably be dumb enough to use
Why does Conservapedia come to mind :)
-MuZemike
On 4/7/2011 7:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a
'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and
inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news
network.
On 8 April 2011 01:03, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a
'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and
inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news
network. And if it was glossy and
On 08/04/2011, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
more successfully hoodong
Yes, although on some articles it's interesting to read, translated
back to me via google translate, what is clearly my own text, with the
same images I selected, from an encyclopedia that claims they now own
the copyright
IMO, the next best thing will be whatever can come along and solve
our social and community problems technologically, while being easier
to edit.
Treat assholes like bugs in the software - code around them, figure
out how you can make the experience downright painful for them while
making it
12 matches
Mail list logo
