[WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day mboverload,

[I'm not even going to bother fixing the top-posting on this one, so 
'bye-'bye context.  Please, Dan Tobias posted a link explaining this.]

> Just to expand:  They don't need to mirror the Wikipedia: content.  All they
> have to do is link back to the actual site.  TaDa - problem fixed.

Once again, I think you've missed the point.  We want Wikipedia to be as 
accessible as possible.  This means:

a) We *want* to be mirrored
    We're producing a free-content encyclopaedia.  For that purpose,
    everything we write is licensed under the GFDL.  All our work is
    *explicitly* available to anyone who wants to take it, provided they
    abide by the rules set out in the GFDL.  In addition, much of the
    revenue that pays for servers and so on comes from mirrors like
    answers.com who kick back some of their income (even though they
    don't have to) as a "thank you" to us for providing free-as-in-speech
    content.  What, you thought our donations were enough to pay for
    *everything*?  Our mirrors owe us.  And we owe *them*.  We can't just
    dismiss them.

b) We cannot assume our readers are using Wikipedia itself
    We're producing a free-content encyclopaedia.  That means we
    encourage people to re-use our work.  We don't want to limit that by
    deliberately making life difficult for re-users.

c) We cannot assume our readers are connected to the Internet
    We're producing a free-content encyclopaedia.  The result, Wikipedia,
    is *not* a website: it's an encyclopaedia that happens to be written
    in hypertext and hosted on the Web.  The content would not stop being
    our content if it were not used in the context of our website.  We're
    taking advantage of the semantic and formatting opportunities
    available through HTML and CSS, but we don't need to be a website for
    that.  Wikipedia content needs to be able to stand alone as well as
    any other encyclopaedia's content could.

d) We cannot assume our readers are *capable* of connecting to the
    Internet
    Yes, even today, there are people living outside America, and unable
    to access the technological marvels y'all are privileged with.  It's
    even possible their circumstances differ wildly from what you expect.
    A version of Wikipedia on CD/DVD, for example, could make it a lot
    easier for certain users to access our content ...

e) We cannot even assume our readers are using a computer
    Wikipedia articles are printed all the time.  We're probably too big
    for our articles to be used in a traditional paper encyclopaedia, but
    there's no reason certain articles couldn't be placed in a book --- a
    hardcover "Best of Wikipedia" showcasing our featured articles, for
    example, would be rather nifty.  HTML is quite useful, but we should
    not write our content such that it can only be enjoyed on a computer.


-- 
"The theater management hears about our meeting and wants us to get 
supplemental insurance that covers lightning-throwing death machines."
(Mike Daisey plans a monologue)