On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:14 PM, William Beutler <[email protected]> wrote: > As to the "natural monopoly" question, well, there is this resource: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly > > There are some markets where network effects and very high entry costs, such > as building infrastructure, make it very difficult for competitors to arise. > Regarding Wikipedia, the financial costs may not be prohibitive, but the > social capital necessary to create a serious rival may be (just ask Larry > Sanger). And the network effect should be fairly plain; Wikipedia is the > place to be. (And I do not underestimate Google here.)
I don't wish to beat up on Larry Sanger, but I think we've seen from experience that he may not be the best person to start a new project. Social capital is a real issue, but it's a combination of social capital of the person, of the idea, of the way the rules come together, the way the community forms there. I think even the most die-hard Wikipedians all have some longing for "Maybe we could be better...". I think there's a pool of potential capital there to work with. The questions are: 1. Who's trying to do it, and how well are they thought of by a potential editor and reader community? 2. Why are they trying to do it - what is the differentiating factor or factors? How do those attract editors or readers? 3. What policies are proposed, and why? 4. Who ends up showing up in the early days, beyond the core team? -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
