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.
Disclaimer: I've read three or four books on marketing, so that, uh,
makes me an expert. ;)
Ben