There is no widespread support. There are some people to which you can say something they don't agree with and back the argument up by saying it's on Wikipedia, and they will say "Anyone can edit Wikipedia".
-- Alvaro
On 15-01-2009, at 22:18, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Two questions:
- 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?
- Your "About" page says:
"Other projects have attempted, and continue to attempt, to develop free Internet encyclopedias—Wikipedia, Citizendium, Conservapedia, Open-Site, Scholarpedia, Veropedia, and Wikinfo, to name a few—yet have failed to produce reliable content, to attract a broad, diverse, responsible, and democratic community, or to achieve widespread public support."
I dispute that. Studies have shown that Wikipedia is as reliable as conventional encyclopaedias, the wide range of subjects covered in great depths shows we have a broad and diverse community, I haven't seen anything to suggest the Wikipedia community is irresponsible, and we don't try to be democratic so you're making a massive assumption there that democracy is the best way to run such a project. As for widespread public support, millions of dollars of donations over the past couple of months suggests we don't have a problem there. So which of those aspects are you suggesting Wikipedia has failed in? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l