On 04/08/11 3:09 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
We will still have a niche in languages they aren't interested in, and
among people who care about copyright. But my suspicion is that we are
unusual, and that most potential editors are more annoyed by having
their contributions rejected by
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
I'd like to see a Wikisource type project that accepts orphan works
(subject to definition) that are supposedly still protected. They could
easily be taken down if a legitimate owner materializes, but otherwise
could
On 10/04/2011 20:44, geni wrote:
Thing is their business model appears to be to start with $50 million
of funding and proceed to hire whoever you need to write your
encyclopedia.
And there is no particular reason why paid staff couldn't be a viable
route to a competitor. But that sounds like
On 11 April 2011 10:49, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
And there is no particular reason why paid staff couldn't be a viable
route to a competitor. But that sounds like the annual budget. And I
suppose the assumption is that doing content in English is enough. You'd
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:26 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
I've also suggested this, calling it '''Wikipedia Two'' - an
encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much
relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring
WP:Verifiability, and NPOV.
On 8 April 2011 23:07, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
A relatively successful wiki competitor is the Encyclopedia of Life.
Here's how that site works:
*Experts write articles (similar to the original Nupedia, only they
dint' give up after nine articles)
*Articles that
Haha, yes. And we certainly seem to be cutting out those who don't wish
to identify.
God bless,
Bob
On 4/10/2011 2:44 PM, geni wrote:
On 8 April 2011 23:07, Bob the Wikipedianbobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
A relatively successful wiki competitor is the Encyclopedia of Life.
Here's how
We already have several rivals, including the Chinese,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_Baike and the largest online
encyclopaedia Hudong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudong At some
point in the near future translation software will improve to the
point that they can compete against us in
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:09, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Other options would be for a site that ended the
inclusionism/deletionism conflict by abandoning notability and
concentrating on verifiability or aiming for comprehensiveness. That
seems to work for IMDB but
On 08/04/2011 11:09, WereSpielChequers wrote:
snip
Other options would be for a site that ended the
inclusionism/deletionism conflict by abandoning notability and
concentrating on verifiability or aiming for comprehensiveness. That
seems to work for IMDB but possibly you need to restrict this
On 8 April 2011 15:17, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Notability has always been a broken and widely-misunderstood aspect of
enWP. My impression is that deWP, for example, sets the bar higher, and
has fewer problems: in a word, deletionism can work well enough.
On 08/04/2011 15:57, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 April 2011 15:17, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Notability has always been a broken and widely-misunderstood aspect of
enWP. My impression is that deWP, for example, sets the bar higher, and
has fewer problems: in a
With regard to the Chinese examples specifically, they may have a lot of
articles, but content-wise, they are a mess. And that isn't just me, the
biased Wikipedia editor saying that. A lot of Chinese people I've talked to
don't trust their content either, particularly Hudong, which is worse than
Tom,
The maintanabilty test strikes me as an interesting one, but I'm not
sure it scales. On Citizendium you had essentially one language and a
relatively small community, on Wikipedia you have:
*
* a much larger multilingual community so exponentially more difficult
to know if someone is
I've also suggested this, calling it '''Wikipedia Two'' - an
encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much
relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring
WP:Verifiability, and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of
barely notable articles in Wikipedia,
I've also suggested this, calling it '''Wikipedia Two'' - an
encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much
relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring
WP:Verifiability, and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of
barely notable articles in
That wouldn't solve anything, except further draw a hard line and create
an even larger rift between editors. If we strive to be an open
community where we bring people together, then we would collectively be
making it more closed by doing this.
-MuZemike
On 4/8/2011 1:26 PM, David Goodman
17 matches
Mail list logo
