One example of the difference is in internal references (or q.v. entries). Even if the 'news style' first section approach is used, the first section of the full Wikipedia article would contain links to articles that don't exist in the concise version.
Oh come on. That is easy to fix - don't mark what would be dead links in a concise version as anything special. This could be done automatically.
Another difference was raised by Mav himself, when he asked that 'we have no forks and no freezing of Wikipedia articles.' I give firm support to the idea that we should never freeze a Wikipedia article in the process of creating the Concise Print version. But the urgency of creating the print ready version imposes two areas of discipline. The first is (IMHO) that we will need to freeze an article as ready.
Sifter software has already been written that exports the current article version of selected articles to another site. It is therefore a fallacy to think that freezing the article is the only option. Just edit the Wikipedia article into news style and then select the resulting version as ready for print. Let a script take care of the rest (removing everything but the lead section, converting links to something that would work in print, removing what would be empty links, etc.).
The second was raised by Ray Saintonge (Ec), and that is that the project will probably need to restrict editing rights, something that we'd never want in Wikipedia.
Only give selected people the ability to use the sifter software. Fixed without the need for a fork or freezing Wikipedia content.
When I wrote the first note about using the 'Language Wiki' method of creating a fork, I just assumed that the fork was going to happen.
So long as I'm still breathing I will strenuously fight against any Wikimedia-sponsored fork.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools