I just found [[Open-Site]] listed on orphaned articles. I was about to delete it, because it looked too much like some newbie trying to describe (and rename) wikipedia. But, I made a Google-search, and found a free, categorized encyclopedia. It only contains a few articles, though.
The layout is nice, and they seem to have it organized (more than wikipedia, that is ;-)
IMHO they're technically too different to merge (categories etc). But maybe this could merge with Larry's "sifter" project?
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
I just found [[Open-Site]] listed on orphaned articles. I was about to delete it, because it looked too much like some newbie trying to describe (and rename) wikipedia. But, I made a Google-search, and found a free, categorized encyclopedia. It only contains a few articles, though.
The layout is nice, and they seem to have it organized (more than wikipedia, that is ;-)
IMHO they're technically too different to merge (categories etc).
They seem to have only a small amount of material -- see http://open-site.org/Arts/Literature/Authors/full-index.html for example. They've covered about 6 authors.
It would be an excellent idea to invite them aboard now, while they are still young. I suggest one of our diplomats (mav maybe) should write to them :-)
-- tarquin
Why would we want to merge? It seems like an excellent project with its own merits which might provide both opportunities and information to us over time.
Fred
At 01:41 PM 1/9/03 +0000, you wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
I just found [[Open-Site]] listed on orphaned articles. I was about to delete it, because it looked too much like some newbie trying to describe (and rename) wikipedia. But, I made a Google-search, and found a free, categorized encyclopedia. It only contains a few articles, though.
The layout is nice, and they seem to have it organized (more than wikipedia, that is ;-)
IMHO they're technically too different to merge (categories etc).
They seem to have only a small amount of material -- see http://open-site.org/Arts/Literature/Authors/full-index.html for example. They've covered about 6 authors.
It would be an excellent idea to invite them aboard now, while they are still young. I suggest one of our diplomats (mav maybe) should write to them :-)
-- tarquin
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Why would we want to merge? It seems like an excellent project with its own merits which might provide both opportunities and information to us over time.
Duplicated effort. Reinvention of the wheel.
These things REALLY bug an ENFP. (apparently ;-)
I guess I don't know what an ENPF is.
Anyway, it has been my experience that alternative ways of doing things generally work out real good for everyone.
I know when I want to buy something or look something up trying several sources works better than going to just one place.
If Sam Walton had not "reinvented the wheel" we'd still be paying $4 for a tube of toothpaste. (At least here where I live).
To get back to the original issue. Open-site seems to be a much more controlled environment than wikipedia, kind of like Nupedia or the sort of thing that Larry is always advocating. It will work out different (actually I think it will fail dismally, but that is a different matter). If they wanted a more free-wheeling situation they could have choosen that but they didn't. If we merge then I suppose we could tighten up our operation or they could loosen theirs, but then both choices are lost and we just have an "elephant" (the animal built by a committee).
We are actally very early in the evolution of on-line reference. There is no reason not to try different things out and see how they work.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Why would we want to merge? It seems like an excellent project with its own merits which might provide both opportunities and information to us over time.
Duplicated effort. Reinvention of the wheel.
These things REALLY bug an ENFP. (apparently ;-)
I guess I don't know what an ENPF is.
Anyway, it has been my experience that alternative ways of doing things generally work out real good for everyone.
Why should I waste an afternoon researching an article, if someone at this other project might have done the same already? Why should someone at that project put time into writing articles from scratch, when we already have them?
I do not think that competition is necessarily healthy.
Why should I waste an afternoon researching an article, if someone at this other project might have done the same already? Why should someone at that project put time into writing articles from scratch, when we already have them?
I do not think that competition is necessarily healthy.
Because they may be better.
Because it is fun.
It's my way or the highway that is not healthy, not competition.
Variety is the spice of life.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
Why should I waste an afternoon researching an article, if someone at this other project might have done the same already? Why should someone at that project put time into writing articles from scratch, when we already have them?
I do not think that competition is necessarily healthy.
Because they may be better.
Because it is fun.
It's my way or the highway that is not healthy, not competition.
Variety is the spice of life.
Variety is good, but I don't see a point in just *writing* an article on a topic if there's already an article somewhere else, available under the same (?) conditions, that can be changed or expanded. Two varieties of the same topic would also be bad for the user, because he'd have to look up both. We'd be back to the "encyclopedia google", eventually ;-)
Where variety would be useful is in the *presentation* and *reliability*. That's why I suggested the merge of that new project with the not-really-existing Sifter.
Magnus
Variety is good, but I don't see a point in just *writing* an article on a topic if there's already an article somewhere else, available under the same (?) conditions, that can be changed or expanded.
Ah, but the conditions are not the same. On open-site one applies to be an editor and in a specific area. God knows what the criteria are. On wikipedia the article can be expanded or changed by anyone, even an anonymous editor (or perhaps cannot be changed if someone is strongly defending it). On open-site only an approved editor can change it and who knows how the interaction between editors would be structured.
Two varieties
of the same topic would also be bad for the user, because he'd have to look up both.
Depends on his needs and the importance of the lookup.
We'd be back to the "encyclopedia google", eventually ;-)
Under the gnu licence that's where were going anyway.
Where variety would be useful is in the *presentation* and *reliability*. That's why I suggested the merge of that new project with the not-really-existing Sifter.
Magnus
True
Fred
On 1/9/03 1:34 PM, "Magnus Manske" magnus.manske@epost.de wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Why should I waste an afternoon researching an article, if someone at this other project might have done the same already? Why should someone at that project put time into writing articles from scratch, when we already have them?
I do not think that competition is necessarily healthy.
Because they may be better.
Because it is fun.
It's my way or the highway that is not healthy, not competition.
Variety is the spice of life.
Variety is good, but I don't see a point in just *writing* an article on a topic if there's already an article somewhere else, available under the same (?) conditions, that can be changed or expanded. Two varieties of the same topic would also be bad for the user, because he'd have to look up both. We'd be back to the "encyclopedia google", eventually ;-)
Where variety would be useful is in the *presentation* and *reliability*. That's why I suggested the merge of that new project with the not-really-existing Sifter.
So do you agree that we shouldn't be duplicating the effort of planetmath.org?
Open-site.org has almost no content. Let's let them go their way and we go ours. Let a thousand flowers bloom (or wither).
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: Magnus Manske magnus.manske@epost.de |X-Accept-Language: de-de, en-us, en |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:34:24 +0100 | |Fred Bauder wrote: | |>>Why should I waste an afternoon researching an article, if someone at |>>this other project might have done the same already? |>>Why should someone at that project put time into writing articles from |>>scratch, when we already have them? |>> |>>I do not think that competition is necessarily healthy. |>> |>> |> |>Because they may be better. |> |>Because it is fun. |> |>It's my way or the highway that is not healthy, not competition. |> |>Variety is the spice of life. |> |> |Variety is good, but I don't see a point in just *writing* an article on |a topic if there's already an article somewhere else, available under |the same (?) conditions, that can be changed or expanded. Two varieties |of the same topic would also be bad for the user, because he'd have to |look up both. We'd be back to the "encyclopedia google", eventually ;-) | |Where variety would be useful is in the *presentation* and |*reliability*. That's why I suggested the merge of that new project with |the not-really-existing Sifter. | |Magnus | |_______________________________________________ |Wikipedia-l mailing list |Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
Fred Bauder wrote:
If Sam Walton had not "reinvented the wheel" we'd still be paying $4 for a tube of toothpaste. (At least here where I live).
I had to look this up -- Founder of Wal-Mart. Don't they pay employees sub-minimal wages?
Please don't apply the doctrines of capitalism to *everything*.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org