On Sep 23, 2004, at 1:42 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
Le Thursday 23 September 2004 03:26, Brion Vibber a écrit :
Certainly we could give them a stripped dump in that timeframe, but I think they'd be wasting a lot of money pressing it to disc in that state. I can't support this as described.
Is Wikipedia that bad? ;o) No I don't think so. There are obviously many stubs, incomplete articles and so on, but still I think that it is a valuable pice of work. Or so I was told. ;o)
Wikipedia is a very valuable resource, but it's a *dynamic* one. If you're going to throw away the advantages of our process, you'd better have something else to fall back on.
There's a *lot* of crud in general. There will be mistakes. There will be falsehoods. There will be 'FUCKFUCKFUCK' vandalism. And in six months when they go to press, the Wikipedia on the web will be much improved -- but every mistake in their published copy will be preserved indelibly and it's us, not Mandrake, who's going to get the bad press over it.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)