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.