http://eol.org/info/press_releases/info/May_9
So - is EoL of any relevance to us? Is there any potential for synergy?
- d.
On 9 May 2012 21:44, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://eol.org/info/press_releases/info/May_9
So - is EoL of any relevance to us? Is there any potential for synergy?
Well they do use some of our articles although they highlight them as unreliable. The rest of their material meets our reliable source guideline.
They are also a useful measure in a number of respects. Obviously there is the direct one of "this is what you can do if you just throw money at the encyclopedia problem" (something to be kept in mind when the foundation tries to justify its budget). But its also a standard of what we need to be more innovative than (the reason I want a video of every single animal is that they want a pic of every single animal).
I was tempted enough to join this site, but actually producing anything is difficult. It reminds me of h2g2.
On 26 May 2012 21:02, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I was tempted enough to join this site, but actually producing anything is difficult. It reminds me of h2g2.
Do tell, please write up the process in detail.
- d.
On 26 May 2012 21:07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 May 2012 21:02, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I was tempted enough to join this site, but actually producing anything is difficult. It reminds me of h2g2.
Do tell, please write up the process in detail.
Well, exactly. I went to the site, noticed that the article "bandicoot" comprised a poor picture of some bandicoots, and joined expecting to splurge in some CC stuff from the Wikipedia article. First I had to join (most people wouldn't bother). Second, I now realise that I can't just splurge some stuff into a predefined format. There is some lovely taxonomic stuff on the Wikipedia article, but it would take me ages to figure out how to transfer it to eol. And the WIkipedia version would _still_ be the most authoritative, so why bother?