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