Anthony DiPierro wrote:
If the source text written for free is well referenced an hour wouldn't be too bad. Of course, what people really seem to be missing is that the $10 million is merely the seed money. *If* they can get some good content created by that (even just 2000 articles would probably do it), there should be no problem raising more money (through donations, sales, services, etc.).
This is possible, but I think still a bit of a stretch. Apart from starting with no articles, they have a number of disadvantages: * They're a commercial organization rather than a non-profit, which tends to make people less willing to donate and volunteer * They are known to have $10m, which makes people less likely to donate or work for free * They appear to be charging for user accounts, which will drastically reduce the number of people who create them * The end result appears to be under a murky and possibly proprietary license, which will not encourage people to work on it for free
Not necessarily fatal flaws, but I'd say it's a long-shot that they will be a serious competitor to Wikipedia anytime in the near future.
-Mark