Jimmy Wales wrote:
So a question naturally comes to mind - how do our 75,000 >1,500 byte articles stack up again Britannica's 75,000 articles?
Really, how important is it that we be always looking over our shoulders to see what Britannica is doing? IIRC it was in the Landy/Bannister Miracle Mile race in the 1950s where the leader missed the record because he looked over his shoulder to see how his competitor was doing; that action affected his momentum. Britannica's 75,000 is relatively static compared to our more dynamic and more adaptable collection. To the extent that we have the inferior article on a subject, we also have the greater flexibility for improvement
I ask because I continue to work on a plan for a drive to Wikipedia 1.0, and a big part of that plan involves getting a realistic assessment of what a Wikipedia 1.0 will look like, relative to Britannica.
Again, never mind "relative to Britannica". It may be more important to know who our target audience is going to be, and what kind of markettiing strategy will reach that audience. What retail price will the public find acceptable, and how does that relate to our costs of production and shipping? What infrastructure do we need to support the sales that we do get?
I believe that our deficiencies can be turned into marketting assets. WP1.0 would be a "snapshot" of what Wikipedia is at a given point in time to which is added a promise of improvement. Instead of the cash rebate that Britannica offers, we can offer some number of revised disks to be mailed in the future .
If I end up setting a 'target date' for Wikipedia 1.0 of 1 year in the future, what might we realistically expect to achieve? What if I set the 'target date' for 2 years in the future?
What I'd like to find out is that we have a realistic chance of having a Wikipedia 1.0 release 1 year from now that rivals Britannica. But there's no need to hurry, if it will take 2 years or 5 years, that's how long it will take.
I think the target date for WP1.0 is largely arbitrary. It should be chosen for the best market impact.
Ec