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(a)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