On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Ben Kovitz bkovitz@acm.org wrote:
On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
We could discuss why [CZ] failed but I think the real answer is simply that Wikipedia is "good enough" so there is very little interest in a new project doing the same thing.
I think you have pegged it exactly right. In most large markets, the rule of thumb is that the #1 player holds 40% market share, the #2 player holds 20% market share, the #3 player holds 10%, and then there are some little guys. Most markets on the Internet, though, are "winner take all". For example: eBay, Amazon, Wikipedia. It's very hard for a newcomer to displace an established top player, *regardless of quality* (unless the quality difference is revolutionary). So, we will likely never be able to test Larry Sanger's claim that giving experts ultimate say would produce a better encyclopedia.
Is Amazon really in a "winner takes all" market? My intuition, as well an incredibly quick search, suggests "no way" ( http://toc.oreilly.com/2008/04/amazon-growth-fuels-onlines-bo.html says "while Amazon is by far the most dominant player, they still represent less than half of the total online book market"). If you've got stats that say otherwise though, I'd gladly accept them over some random guy on the Internet.
eBay I can understand, but I see no reason why Wikipedia will be a winner takes all market. All that's needed is a decent search engine for educational content, which doesn't focus so much on popularity. I can't imagine that not happening one of these days.