--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.
The problem with a fork is that you'd leave most of the community behind, and the community is A) large, B) full of experts in obscure topics, and C) knowledgable about the state of existing WP articles.
Having "stable-development" branches for articles seemed an excellent idea, and would effectively be an "in-project" fork...is this still under consideration?
-- Matt
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:26:59 +0000 (GMT), Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.
The problem with a fork is that you'd leave most of the community behind, and the community is A) large, B) full of experts in obscure topics, and C) knowledgable about the state of existing WP articles.
Having "stable-development" branches for articles seemed an excellent idea, and would effectively be an "in-project" fork...is this still under consideration?
-- Matt
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
You are making assumptions as to which way people (including or particularly experts in obscure topics) would go...
Zoney