On 17 June 2012 14:53, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote: > >> In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything* >> clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly >> suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general, >> rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want >> to do. > > Which comes back to someone testing our practical forkability, then > (as I've noted before) - arguably an important part of backup hygiene, > but one which is in no way actually urgent at present.
I certainly don't think it's urgent to try now - I'm sanguine that the WMF WP we have now will be around for a second decade at least - but I do think it's important to remember when bringing up the issue of competitors. As there are no major and well-used forks at all, we can't reasonably draw inferences of the desirability of a specific project from its non-existence - we simply don't have the information to make that conclusion. This applies whether the hypothetical fork is one using an image filter, one using stable versions, one using peer-review editorial control, one dynamically switching between varieties of English, or anything else... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
