[Aw crap, I hate it when replies end up going to individuals and not
the list; you'd think the list software would always make the headers
the same, wouldn't you?]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:07:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia trademark being used incorrectly
To: Scott Nelson <scott(a)penguinstorm.com>
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:22:14 -0800, Scott Nelson <scott(a)penguinstorm.com> wrote:
And you're suggesting that this would somehow be
different if the
reference was to a Wiki instead of a Wikipedia?
Yes, because we can distance ourselves from other wikis by saying "its
a different wiki; that's 'FoonamiWiki' this is 'Wikipedia' ". We
can
explain that wikis have been around a lot longer than Wikipedia has.
To my mother, there is no difference between a Wiki
and a Wikipedia.
The risk your describing is real as long as the foundation continues to
use the word Wiki in it's project names. This is quite distinct from
the situation with Movable Type which, to the media, produces "blogs"
but can in fact be used for much much more.
But isn't that a bit like saying that calling a website "blogger" or
"blogspot" leads to confusion with the concept of blogging? I mean if
another *wiki* does something evil, we can say "yes, but it wasn't
Wikipedia, it was just some other wiki", and explain the difference
between the two terms. Just like Blogger could say "blogging is a
general term, not every blogging system reflects on us".
If we allow it to be "an unrelated wikipedia", how do we even begin to
clarify the distinction? I mean, literally, how would you construct a
sentence to explain to someone "that's not the *real* Wikipedia, it's
just *a* wikipedia"? (or even, of course, "something else that's
decided to *call* itself Wikipedia"; cf. my "MS Wikipedia" example)
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]