In a message dated 1/21/2009 9:17:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
* free—as in the sense of freedom, not necessarily in the sense of beer; * reliable—in other words, accurate, coherent, and neutral; and * global—that is, multilingual and written by a diverse, broad group of people.
Britannica might be reliable, and it might become slightly global, but it is not yet multilingual and it isn't free.>>
------------- What evidence do you have that an encyclopedia must be free?
Society has existed for a few thousand years without a free encyclopedia.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62)
What evidence do you have that an encyclopedia must be free?
Society has existed for a few thousand years without a free encyclopedia.
Sorry, I was unclear.
I meant that an encyclopedia _should_ be free and global (but _must_ be reliable).
—Thomas Larsen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:20 AM, wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2009 9:17:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
- free—as in the sense of freedom, not necessarily in the sense of beer;
- reliable—in other words, accurate, coherent, and neutral; and
- global—that is, multilingual and written by a diverse, broad group of
people.
Britannica might be reliable, and it might become slightly global, but it is not yet multilingual and it isn't free.>>
What evidence do you have that an encyclopedia must be free?
Society has existed for a few thousand years without a free encyclopedia.
A statement trivially true. Society has also existed for a few thousand years without copyright, period.
The combination of user generated content, user-based editorial control, and free content is our characteristic. That doesn't mean it's the best way for all purposes, or even that it will always be us that implements it best.
It is perfectly possible that if there were an equally free encyclopedia that was equally comprehensive, but did have editorial control in a more authoritarian conventional manner, that people might prefer it for many or most purposes. Even so, we will have the distinction for being not just the first large project of our sort, but the one that stimulated change elsewhere. It's an acknowledgment of our importance that we are influencing conventional publication also.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:20 AM, wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkl4kr4ACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oKbEQCcC5i02/SXa2EgSuncpVydj+h2 9jkAniovyrPUW4o0MW5Xl1kCvy50afRD =hWcx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In a message dated 1/21/2009 9:17:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
- free—as in the sense of freedom, not necessarily in the sense of beer;
- reliable—in other words, accurate, coherent, and neutral; and
- global—that is, multilingual and written by a diverse, broad group of
people.
Britannica might be reliable, and it might become slightly global, but it is not yet multilingual and it isn't free.>>
What evidence do you have that an encyclopedia must be free?
Society has existed for a few thousand years without a free encyclopedia.
A statement trivially true. Society has also existed for a few thousand years without copyright, period.
-- gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
The combination of user generated content, user-based editorial control, and free content is our characteristic. That doesn't mean it's the best way for all purposes, or even that it will always be us that implements it best.
It is perfectly possible that if there were an equally free encyclopedia that was equally comprehensive, but did have editorial control in a more authoritarian conventional manner, that people might prefer it for many or most purposes. Even so, we will have the distinction for being not just the first large project of our sort, but the one that stimulated change elsewhere. It's an acknowledgment of our importance that we are influencing conventional publication also.
It's important that we learn from Britannica's history. Its current crisis is not the first time it's been on its deathbed. Its revival often depended on the injection of new management with new ideas. We have yet to figure out how to make our own rule-making processes dynamic. There's a natural tendency for majorities to be comfortably protectionist about their vicarious accomplishments. The status quo can have a warm and fuzzy feeling of the kind that makes babies reluctant to leave the womb.
Ec
Gwern Branwen wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2009 larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
What evidence do you have that an encyclopedia must be free?
Society has existed for a few thousand years without a free encyclopedia.
A statement trivially true. Society has also existed for a few thousand years without copyright, period.
And for most of those few thousand years there were no printing presses. Copyright without printing presses was meaningless.
Ec