Nevertheless I wouldn't be surprised to see a billion dollar IPO for
either of them.
Fred
I think that it is also worth pointing out that, in my experience,
articles
on Hudong are pretty bad. They are poorly formatted, poorly written,
generally lack inline referencing, and often have
On 24.08.2011 16:27, wrote Andrew Lih:
I never liked the phrase China's Wikipedia to describe what Hudong
does, because, honestly, China's Wikipedia is zh.wikipedia.org. The
journalist in this case, Rebecca Fannin, uses that term much too
casually.
Hi Andrew,
sorry for nickpicking. I would
I hadn't heard of Hudong before. This article by Rebecca Fannin calls
it China's Wikipedia and says it has a 95% market share and more
than 5 million entries from 3.6 million contributors.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccafannin/2011/08/23/why-draper-funded-chinas-wikipedia/
English
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I hadn't heard of Hudong before. This article by Rebecca Fannin calls
it China's Wikipedia and says it has a 95% market share and more
than 5 million entries from 3.6 million contributors.
I think that it is also worth pointing out that, in my experience, articles
on Hudong are pretty bad. They are poorly formatted, poorly written,
generally lack inline referencing, and often have copyright violations.
Baidu Baike is of somewhat higher quality, though I think that both pale in
