It's not just "failed Wikipedias" but "successful
non-Wikipedias" that need to be highlighted and compared to Wikipedia
In short, the purpose would be to engage in scholarly, "inciteful",
Wikipedia-bashing. What is irreparably flawed in the design? (More
politely: if we were to do it all over again, what would we do
differently?) Why is it so unappealing to potential women editors
(per above)? What are the other outstanding failures of Wikipedia?
Along with this initiative, I suggest inviting Domas Mituzas
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/fuzheado/228629484/) to give a keynote.
Wiki-research-l mailing list