2009/1/16 Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi Thomas,
1) What are you plans regarding incorporating
content from other
projects? There is a good chance that Wikipedia will soon switch to a
license compatible with yours, so you could copy content across. Do
you plan to do so, and to what extent?
My knowledge of the licence situation at the moment is that, since
Wikipedia contributors agree to licence their contributions under
"GFDL 1.2 _or later_", we can use them under GFDL 1.3 and thus import
them to Epistemia under the CC-BY-SA. If, actually, we can't do this,
then we'll just have to wait until Wikipedia changes to CC-BY-SA. I'm
not willing, though, to make Wikipedia's mistake again (well,
actually, calling it a "mistake" is not entirely fair, since it was
the only real option back in 2001).
You had better read the new GFDL license again - only Wikimedia can
relicence content on Wikimedia projects (that was the purpose of the
deadline that passed 2 days before the license was published). You'll
have to wait. My question was what you plan to do if Wikipedia does
switch.
Wikipedia's main issues, in my eyes, are (a) lack
of _consistent_
reliability (compare articles in the hard sciences, which tend to be
written by specialists, to articles in the soft sciences such as the
humanities)
What is that assertion based on? That studies I've seen have examined
quite a broad range of articles.
and (b) a participatory culture that is commonly
incivil
and/or impolite. I'm sure you've experienced discussions where a
perfectly good argument has been dissolved (or quelled) by hordes of
angry, shouting people who are so passionate about a particular point
of view, or too lazy to research it, that they refuse to accept logic.
Sure, but civility wasn't on your list.