On 17 June 2012 14:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything* clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general, rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want to do.
Which comes back to someone testing our practical forkability, then (as I've noted before) - arguably an important part of backup hygiene, but one which is in no way actually urgent at present.
I certainly don't think it's urgent to try now - I'm sanguine that the WMF WP we have now will be around for a second decade at least - but I do think it's important to remember when bringing up the issue of competitors.
As there are no major and well-used forks at all, we can't reasonably draw inferences of the desirability of a specific project from its non-existence - we simply don't have the information to make that conclusion. This applies whether the hypothetical fork is one using an image filter, one using stable versions, one using peer-review editorial control, one dynamically switching between varieties of English, or anything else...