[WikiEN-l] Webypedia - another doomed alternative to Wikipedia

[geni]

On 30 August 2010 01:25, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 August 2010 01:14, William Beutler <williambeutler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do think alternative wiki projects that seek to fill "gaps" created by
>> Wikipedia's choice not to include some types of information stand the best
>> chance of success -- going head-to-head with this entrenched incumbent is
>> foolhardy, unless the Wikipedia community falls apart and the site falls
>> into total disrepair -- even then I think there is so much value here
>> already that it's far more likely Wikipedia would be resuscitated, than any
>> rival wiki encyclopedia taking the lead.
>
>
> I said a few years ago that in ten years (so 2015 or so), the only
> general encyclopedia would be Wikipedia or a fork of it. This was
> intended with trepidation, not triumphalism.
>
> There are various niches for other wikis.
>
> * Subject-specific and allowing original research. This is quite a
> common format.
> * Subject-specific and allowing opinion. (TV Tropes is a huge winner here.)
> * Just use MediaWiki as a CMS, not functionally a wiki at all. (Wikileaks.)
>
> Having a lax notability policy is a common divergence, but others are possible.
>
> * Multiple articles on a topic - Wikinfo, arguably Knol. Gives some
> writers what they want, not a hit with the public.
> * Credentials required. Dangerous - CZ tried this and was infested
> with cranks and pseudoscience. Cranks may not have expertise, but they
> sure know about pieces of paper.
>
> What have I missed?
>
>

The chinese wikis (Hudong is bigger than the english wikipedia).

The possibility of a significant jump in natural language processing
making it possible for computers to generate articles on demand.

Free translation between english and chinese could also result in
hudong and the like moving into the english language.

A sustained government backed effort (think BBC of encyclopedias)

Potentially a release of journal databases backed by an improvement in
search technology could act as significant competition for our more
technical articles.


-- 
geni