On 20 December 2010 17:15, MZMcBride
<z(a)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?