Lars Aronsson wrote: > Frederik Ramm wrote about OSM vs. Wikipedia: > >> Wikipedia does not collect >> raw data, it collects/creates an end product. > > This description of Wikipedia is wrong.
It's not, because... > It would be better for Wikipedia if more readers went to other > mirror websites ...is the difference. The cyclemap isn't a mirror. OSM-on-Garmin isn't a mirror. OpenRouteService isn't a mirror. They are "creative and unexpected uses of the data" - heck, even [EMAIL PROTECTED] could be considered not a mirror. Whereas all those pagerank exercises that rehost Wikipedia to get some Google Adsense income are just that - mirrors. They add nothing to the original content. So when you say > Just like OSM, Wikipedia > is about compiling free contents. How this is presented can be > determined by the user, who downloads the database dump and > converts it to something useful: on the web, on CDROM or in print. it kind of ignores the fact that a good 20% of OSM's userbase is involved in alternative presentations of the data, whereas barely 2% of Wikipedia page views come through anything other than the default Mediawiki view at somethingorother.wikipedia.org. [1] cheers Richard [1] spurious statistics entirely made up for purpose of proving argument _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
