> 2009/8/10 Mike Godwin <[email protected]>: > >> But to me the takeaway from this error of Knol's licensing design is >> not >> that Knol can't work -- it's that it actually could work, if properly >> thought through. Â So my view right now is the Wikimedia community >> can't be >> complacent about Knol's apparent failure -- properly adjusted and >> redesigned, it could have quite an impact on us. Â We're going to have >> to >> continue to give serious attention to all the issues, from quality to >> community to legality, that give us an advantage in terms of fueling >> creative collaboration, as we go forward. >> The next Knol can't be relied upon to make the same mistakes. > > > Whuh? > > Educational free content production is not competition with us. It's > success for us. > > Knol, as first put forward, looked like about.com - factual signed > articles. If it had worked, that would have been fantastic as a > reference source. > > In what way would a successful version of Knol actually be a problem > for us? If ten other websites fulfill WMF's mission without WMF having > to pay the hosting bills, how is that a problem for us? I really don't > see it. > > > - d.
Didn't you ever play Monopoly? Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
