On Dec 21, 2007 2:32 PM, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 8:30 PM, <joshua.zelinsky> wrote:
Well Citizendium for reasons I don't fully understand decided to delete all of their from-Wikipedia content that hadn't been already highly modified.
So
they seem to be determined to succeed without the free re-use which seems to
me
at least to be needlessly shooting oneself in the foot. I want my content
to
be reused. I'd likely not contribute if it had to be under a more
restrictive
license. But yes, if the best we do is to make a roadmap for someone to do even better than we have done we should be happy.
I suspect that goes back to the idea of needing to create a distinct
"brand"
presence. If Citizendium just has improved versions of Wikipedia
articles,
it also inherits Wikipedia's reputation for unreliability, and makes it harder for them to develop their own brand identity.
Imagine Conservapedia importing 100,000 Wikipedia articles and making
only
basic fixes (like changing all BE spelling to AE and inserting the word "theory of" wherever "evolution" and "big bang" occur. No one would go
over
there for laughs any more, because it would be too hard to find the
genuine
kool aid.
You seem to have the very essence of it :) To fill out the details see:
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,431.0.html
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day folks,
I note that Larry Sanger was predicting 50,000 or 100,000 instead of the 20,000 produced in the first year. After nearly, a year, they have 4,400. Hardly a stunning success.
Regards
*Keith Old*
User:Capitalistroadster