2006/5/29, Traroth <traroth(a)yahoo.fr>fr>:
Michael Snow a écrit :
And for the other projects, a wiki is sometimes
far from ideal, true
enough. That's been recognized for some time, which is why there are
ongoing efforts to adapt or extend the software to better serve those
objectives. In the meantime, the wiki is the tool we've got. Tired
cliches aside, I'm sure better ones would be welcomed if somebody cares
to offer us more tools.
That's not false. But a question remains : why did Wikipedia become a hit, with
millions of articles in hundred of languages, while Nupedia, which actually followed the
same principles as Wikipedia, except it was not a wiki, never reached 100 articles ?
Well, as said, for Wikipedia wiki worked very well. That doesn't mean
it works as well for other projects. A wiki means several things at
once, and it is one of them (the wiki philosophy of free editing and
control afterward instead of in advance) that made Wikipedia work
where Nupedia did not. Wiktionary would I think work better in an
environment with the same philosophy but a different technology (more
database-like rather than marked up text). Wikiquote and Commons might
well profit from a similar switch. For Wikisource the whole 'free
editing' concept itself does not seem as suitable, or at least, not as
necessary.
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels