Mav:No - Wikipedia stays the same. The only difference is that another project takes our

articles, >improves them and then puts the >results back into

Wikipedia. And nobody has proposed selling textbooks.

"Put the results back into wikipedia?" how is that going to happen? Source A forks into:Source A, Source B. Source A develops, and source B develops independently of A. What does source B have that directly gets put back into A? Why would someone take more time to do it twice? Is that efficient? Isnt this the whole reason why people like WP in the first place? --The good idea gets the buzz -- the copycats get the buzz off. This is basic entropy 101. The truth is, underlying all attempts to make "proper" product is a philosophy that has completely *given-up on the democratic -- improve-it-or-shut-up approach of the WP. Once again, another way to "fork" the WP.

MAV:If you don't want external projects doing this to

the >text you submit then you are in the wrong project.

As I recall, someone came up with this textbook idea and three days later it had its own url. Hardly a well thought out idea -- but nevertheless a reality -- and probably a good thing. Its not original, though as there are other projects that are related -- and the GNU FDL compatibility issues with these other projects are somewhat unresolved. Anyway, good luck with the textbook project -- It seems to be a more focused and legitimate goal than some of the others.

-S-

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com