Tim Starling wrote: > Delirium wrote: > >> Tim Starling wrote: >> >>> Brock Weller wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Don't know how linked we still are with wikia... >>>> >>>> >>> What do you mean "still"? Wikimedia has never been linked with Wikia to >>> the extent where this topic might be relevant on foundation-l. It's no >>> more relevant than Wikitravel, Jimmy's objectivist mailing lists or >>> Answers.com. >>> >>> What Wikimedia's volunteers do outside of Wikimedia is their own business. >>> >>> >> I'm pretty sure Wikitravel, Jimmy's objectivist mailing lists, and >> Answers.com have never been widely confused with Wikimedia to the extent >> that multiple news articles referred to them as the "commercial >> counterpart" to Wikipedia. > They also did not share office space or >> bandwidth with Wikimedia, or have debts to Wikimedia mentioned in >> independent financial audits. They also did not use advertising slogans >> that made prominent use of the Wikipedia trademark and implied a >> relationship, such as Wikia's former slogan, "Wikipedia is the >> Encyclopedia. Wikia is the rest of the library." >> > > I'm not seeing anything in that rant that contradicts the point I was > making. They might be different to Wikitravel in other ways, but they are > the same in terms of the lack of relevance of a content-related complaint > to foundation-l. >
The point I was making is that the fact that people thought a content-related complaint about Wikia might be relevant to the foundation is the fault primarily of Wikia and the Foundation, and especially its entangled principals, not the fault of a newbie complainer who was misled by the association. Given your conflict of interest in this matter, you are also not particularly well positioned to comment. -Mark _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
