On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM, David Levy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > But what's the point of duplicating the entire structure (including > talk pages) instead of simply referring these experts to Wikipedia? > Even if everything could be made seamless, what would be the > advantage? > It's simple, really. First, there are a number of beneficial interface changes that could be made when dealing with a group of experts in a specific field - embedded tools to common references, additional methods of communication, etc. It might encourage field experts to contribute if they can do so through a site they already use, particularly if they don't have to leave most of the elements of that site behind. Also, of course, it would be possible for these people to generate free content while also benefiting the referring site. I understand that having anyone draw any benefit from anything related to Wikimedia is something that a number of people reflectively object to, but such is life and I find its easier to ignore that line of thinking entirely. Such benefits encourage referrers or partners to encourage contributions to our projects, which is obviously what we want. Plus, and particularly if the experts on arthistory (or sites with arrangements similar to those contemplated by the original poster) are academic... We always gain when we increase our penetration among content experts. So the question really should be, what of this would be to our disadvantage? Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
