Yep, I agree with all that. It would have been 100% better to present it
as a project and go to great lengths to de-emphasize it as a product.
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
But would Liza have been able to fool the count if,
instead of being
personally tutored by Higgins, she just asked the advice of 100
different people how to do it? Hmm...
Let's not let our vision of the future blind us to the realities of
the present. The process of Wikipedia will, in a few years, produce
vast quantities of good information that will be possible to assemble
into a great product or two. But the present state of Wikipedia
really isn't a useful product, and pretending it is just gets us
slammed--quite fairly--as we got at Kuro5hin. If we're going to sell
it, let's sell what it actually is--a project, not a product. It's
WAY too early to be suggesting Wikipedia to anything like Ask Jeeves
or Copernic or other real products. In 3 or 4 years, maybe.
A song immediately pops to mind: "Just you
wait, 'enry 'iggins, just
wait...you'll be sorry, 'enry 'iggins,
just you wait..."
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, wojtek pobratyn wrote:
> I suggested wikipedia to copernic.com
. This is the reply I got.
> engines2(a)copernic.com napisa³:
> > Thank you for contributing to our continuous effort to ensure
products always meet the highest quality standards.
> > Here are the sites you have suggested. Note that a brief comment
indicate how your suggestions are or was processed.
> > Url: http://www.wikipedia.com/
> > Category: encyclopedias
> > Remark: -The site you have suggested does not meet the quality
requirements we have set for our products.
Information Source Team
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: