On 30 December 2010 00:27, Aryeh Gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
> You could even compete by > putting up a better editing interface, conceivably, although auth > would be tricky to work out. You know, this is something that would be extremely easy to experiment with right now, > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Brion Vibber <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think this isn't as useful a question as it might be; defining a project >> in terms of competing with something else leads to stagnation, not >> innovation. > I agree. The correct strategy to take down Wikipedia would involve > overcoming the network effect that locks it into its current position > of dominance, and that's not something that would be useful for > Wikipedia itself to do. To fend off attacks of this sort, what you'd > want is to make your content harder to reuse, which we explicitly > *don't* want to do. Better to ask: how can we enable more people to > contribute who want to but can't be bothered? Making Wikipedia easy to mirror and fork is the best protection I can think of for the content itself. It also keeps the support structures (Foundation) and community good and honest. Comparison: People keep giving Red Hat money; Debian continues despite a prominent and successful fork (Ubuntu), and quite a bit goes back from the fork (both pull and push). - d. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
