On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:13:46 +0200, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac_15@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very
loose, and
they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality,
reliable
sourcing, brilliant prose, etc.
That's exactly the kind of thing that the Encyclopedia Britannica said about the Wikipedia!
-- -Ian Woollard
Exactly what I thought. Better integration and support for wikiprojects (have to say, I sort of prefer "task groups" as a name...), better recognition on the wiki of top contributors to various articles -- those are things we could really learn from. And if we could approach the proprietor, and encourage a more compatible licensing scheme, our Chinese language projects could really benefit (and their project could benefit from Wikimedia content).
Did this thing just appear out of nowhere? Suddenly a collaborative online reference site larger than the English Wikipedia?
Well they have been around for 2-3 years. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details I have to admit. I'm under the impression that it came about as a "replacement" for the Chinese Wikipedia since the Chinese government kept blocking access to it because it didn't conform to the party line when it came to scertain aspects of history and political borders (Taiwan etc.).
Although looking at our articles I might be thinking of [[Baidu Baike]], wich "only" have about 1,5 million articles aparently despite operating for about a year longer than [[Hudong]].