Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sentiment makes me agree with you, and this noble idea. I wonder if Britannica can even survive. That's sad for an institution that's been around for 250 years. They were built on the model of a bulky multi-volume set of books. Who's going to buy that if one can find so much more information at no cost? At present Wikipedia is well ahead of Britannica in quantity, and almost equal in quality. Recent events have forced us to look at quality, and there is certainly incentive to do something about it. Where does that leave them when the only asset they have left is an established name?
Brockhaus is pretty much the German equivalent of Britannica in quality and respectability. They don't seem to be panicking at Wikipedia's popularity and de:'s market-ready level of quality.
If one can depend on Alexa ratings they show that we are at that part of the pyramid where the air is thin. How we managed to get there has probably left most of us puzzled. When you're that big it's hard to roll over in bed without crushing the one beside you. What are the ethical implications of being where we are? Maybe as a group we need to address some of these issues in Boston.
It is extremely important that we NOT be spooked by our silly levels of popularity. They indicate that we fill a real need, even if those of us inside the project are painfully aware of its defects.
I think being honest about what we are and where we are will be enough. "It's not a finished product, it's the raw materials for one. But an outside company helped polish up the German one and released it on a DVD for a few Euros, and we're working on getting the others up to that standard. It's a work in progress."
Can I start pushing the POV that Wikimania 2007 should be in Africa?
You're going to move there and become a local organiser? :-D
- d.