[Foundation-l] Don't know how linked we still are with wikia...

[Delirium]

Tim Starling wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>   
>> Tim Starling wrote:
>>     
>>> Brock Weller wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Don't know how linked we still are with wikia...
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> What do you mean "still"? Wikimedia has never been linked with Wikia to
>>> the extent where this topic might be relevant on foundation-l. It's no
>>> more relevant than Wikitravel, Jimmy's objectivist mailing lists or
>>> Answers.com.
>>>
>>> What Wikimedia's volunteers do outside of Wikimedia is their own business.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I'm pretty sure Wikitravel, Jimmy's objectivist mailing lists, and 
>> Answers.com have never been widely confused with Wikimedia to the extent 
>> that multiple news articles referred to them as the "commercial 
>> counterpart" to Wikipedia. > They also did not share office space or 
>> bandwidth with Wikimedia, or have debts to Wikimedia mentioned in 
>> independent financial audits. They also did not use advertising slogans 
>> that made prominent use of the Wikipedia trademark and implied a 
>> relationship, such as Wikia's former slogan, "Wikipedia is the 
>> Encyclopedia. Wikia is the rest of the library."
>>     
>
> I'm not seeing anything in that rant that contradicts the point I was
> making. They might be different to Wikitravel in other ways, but they are
> the same in terms of the lack of relevance of a content-related complaint
> to foundation-l.
>   

The point I was making is that the fact that people thought a 
content-related complaint about Wikia might be relevant to the 
foundation is the fault primarily of Wikia and the Foundation, and 
especially its entangled principals, not the fault of a newbie 
complainer who was misled by the association.

Given your conflict of interest in this matter, you are also not 
particularly well positioned to comment.

-Mark