On 24 November 2010 08:40, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 23/11/2010 11:15, David Gerard wrote:
I meant, of course, a fork of Citizendium. Buh.
The knives seem to be out for the fork of (fork of WP). As you say, if Tendrl is CC-by-SA it's all good, in terms of spooning content around. Apart from noting that social dynamics of the uneasy kind is not confined to our own shores, is there anything to do here?
I've pointed out they'll need more differentiation than another slightly-tweaked set of rules.
As such, I declare it: time for the "differentiation from Wikipedia" thread again! What could a general encyclopedia project do to differentiate itself from Wikipedia and gain a niche?
* Put data in in such a way that it can be easily manipulated and redisplayed. (Semantic MediaWiki or similar.) * University affiliation such that an "expert" policy doesn't result in the cranks flooding in waving pieces of paper. The result might end up just a Wikipedia feeder in effect, but it may provide a good environment for the writers that might actually produce something.
What else? Pick a problem with Wikipedia and a solution to it that hasn't already failed.
- d.
On 24 November 2010 08:40, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 23/11/2010 11:15, David Gerard wrote:
I meant, of course, a fork of Citizendium. Buh.
The knives seem to be out for the fork of (fork of WP). As you say, if Tendrl is CC-by-SA it's all good, in terms of spooning content around. Apart from noting that social dynamics of the uneasy kind is not confined to our own shores, is there anything to do here?
I've pointed out they'll need more differentiation than another slightly-tweaked set of rules.
As such, I declare it: time for the "differentiation from Wikipedia" thread again! What could a general encyclopedia project do to differentiate itself from Wikipedia and gain a niche?
- Put data in in such a way that it can be easily manipulated and
redisplayed. (Semantic MediaWiki or similar.)
- University affiliation such that an "expert" policy doesn't result
in the cranks flooding in waving pieces of paper. The result might end up just a Wikipedia feeder in effect, but it may provide a good environment for the writers that might actually produce something.
What else? Pick a problem with Wikipedia and a solution to it that hasn't already failed.
- d.
It is not the specific variation which is central. Anything that successfully incorporates social media can succeed, as some Wikia wikis have such as Lostpedia: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Enthusiasm is what makes the difference. Why does FourLoko succeed where root beer fails?
Fred Bauder
On 24/11/2010 09:48, Fred Bauder wrote:
It is not the specific variation which is central. Anything that successfully incorporates social media can succeed, as some Wikia wikis have such as Lostpedia: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Enthusiasm is what makes the difference. Why does FourLoko succeed where root beer fails?
Well, yes, in that "it's the community, stupid" is a good general reply to abstract specification and constitutional talk about online work. Of course this is the opposite of a "differentiator" from WP; in some sense a successful community ought to have something in common with (some successful language version of) Wikipedia. CZ had a founding idea that the differentiator was at least in part to be "we're not Wikipedia ... and so experts are welcome". Always partly a slur in fact, but they apparently have not made that work. Underestimation of gnoming and page churn is not going to help. Overestimation of the writerly neither.
There is a gap in the market for something that is basically "the mother of all infoboxes", or a sophisticated version of that. Commercially I believe this is being done in my home town, probably elsewhere too. Ontologies and structured data but for the masses, not theoreticians, and with a thoughtful and attractive front end (for younger viewers, let's say). Death of the author.
Charles
On 24 November 2010 15:48, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
There is a gap in the market for something that is basically "the mother of all infoboxes", or a sophisticated version of that. Commercially I believe this is being done in my home town, probably elsewhere too. Ontologies and structured data but for the masses, not theoreticians, and with a thoughtful and attractive front end (for younger viewers, let's say). Death of the author.
See the inchoate Wikidata not-quite-proposals on foundation-l and commons-l lately. You should throw the above paragraph in.
- d.