On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Delirium<delir...@hackish.org> wrote: > Sage Ross wrote: >> Hence the desirability of creating a free alternative to Amazon's >> reviews. > I buy this, but my main question would be: why Wikimedia? It doesn't > seem to have a lot to do with collaborative editing, wikis, knowledge > production, or any of our other core areas. My guess for what the > software would look like makes it not seem to overlap very much with any > of our existing software, either. >
I agree, it's something of a departure in being not directly collaborative and not well-suited for the standard wiki approach. I think it does have to do with knowledge production--it collects first-hand knowledge of how well goods function and what their shortcomings are, for example. The reason I think Wikimedia might ought to get involved in this area is because--in terms of public recognition and infrastructural stability--Wikimedia is becoming a cornerstone of the free culture ecosystem. So it makes sense to me to start supporting/mirroring/organizing/structuring useful free content that's being created within smaller, possibly financially unsustainable projects, and to make it possible for such projects to continue even if their original venues shut down. -Sage _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
