Sage Ross wrote:
Hence the desirability of creating a free alternative to Amazon's
reviews. Amazon's reviews, especially for manufactured goods, are an
extremely valuable public service (even if you don't shop at Amazon),
and the fact they are controlled and maintained by a for-profit
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Deliriumdelir...@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,
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikinews does not adhere to the strict NPOV interpretation that is
inevitable for Wikipedia. Wikiversity could not even come close
to employing anything remotely like it. Wikispecies actually
doesn't have any
Dear “Wikipedians”,
please allow us to introduce a project we have been working on for
about a year now:
Explaining the importance of the open-source movement for a free
internet or the importance of Wikipedia (i.e. free content in the form
of factual knowledge) here would be like carrying coals
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:42 AM, teun spaansteun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
The only question which your statement here raises is why you limit yourself
to reviews. Imho there might be a considerable market area for people who
have opinions to voice on politics, religion, etc.
Reviews are
Sage Ross wrote:
I think this is an excellent, long overdue idea and something
Wikimedia should be interested in. I was actually thinking of
proposing something like this at strategy.wikimedia.org (and may still
do so).
I don't think that creating such a project within Wikimedia would be a
So, I think that such a project works well with the concept of NPOV. I think
you can break the site into two distinct parts.
Part 1: You collect opinions of various sorts in various ways.
Part 2: You organize them in terms of their relative significance to each
other and summarize them in a
People who want to write reviews of this sort generally want to
propagandize either for or against something they have strong
feelings about. The susceptibility of a project like this to
campaigning and cabalism is so great, that i doubt a community run
project could maintain objectivity. We
Victor Vasiliev wrote:
Sage Ross wrote:
I think this is an excellent, long overdue idea and something
Wikimedia should be interested in. I was actually thinking of
proposing something like this at strategy.wikimedia.org (and may still
do so).
I don't think that creating such a
