geni wrote:
Forks allow people with a common interest to work quitely on a project sorounded only by those who share their interests. For some this enviroment may be more productive.
We have WikiProjects to create such an environment, and they have the added bonus of keeping the content usable within Wikipedia (so that, e.g., the creators of a community fork aren't so damn pissed off with their treatment here they pick an incompatible license as a "fuck-you").
What is there that a community fork achieves that a WikiProject does not, in your view?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
geni wrote:
Forks allow people with a common interest to work quitely on a project sorounded only by those who share their interests. For some this enviroment may be more productive.
We have WikiProjects to create such an environment, and they have the added bonus of keeping the content usable within Wikipedia (so that, e.g., the creators of a community fork aren't so damn pissed off with their treatment here they pick an incompatible license as a "fuck-you").
What is there that a community fork achieves that a WikiProject does not, in your view?
I can think of one thing: they're guaranteed that no dumb kid is going to wander in a slap {{afd}} on everything they're working on.
On 11/15/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote: We have WikiProjects to create such an environment, and they have the added bonus of keeping the content usable within Wikipedia (so that, e.g., the creators of a community fork aren't so damn pissed off with their treatment here they pick an incompatible license as a "fuck-you").
What is there that a community fork achieves that a WikiProject does not, in your view?
A community fork allows people to claim a greater level of ownership of articles.
-- geni