On 20/12/2010 15:31, David Gerard wrote:
On 20 December 2010 17:15, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 19/12/2010 23:07, Fred Bauder wrote:
There can be no viable alternative to Wikipedia.
This is the type of thinking that sets you up to being blindsided.
In this case, that sounds like a feature, not a bug.
Specifically, that the only way Wikipedia will get itself any sort of viable competitor is by allowing itself to be blindsided.
Fortunately, a proper blindsiding requires something that addresses structural defects of Wikipedia in such a way that others can use them.
(One idea that was mooted on the Citizendium forums: a general, neutral encyclopedia that is heavy on the data, using SMW or similar. Some of the dreams of Wikidata would cover this - "infoboxes on steroids" at a minimum. Have we made any progress on a coherent wishlist for Wikidata?)
[And has someone trademarked Wikidata yet, or a suitable similar concept if we're too late?]
Is there a general consensus about achieving a monopoly as a good goal. Is this part of some public strategy? Is this the position of WMF? Of chapters? I thought I heard some weeks ago on that mail list that diversity is good. That competitors are healthy. Could we have a clarification of positions about this?