On 20/12/2010 15:31, David Gerard wrote: > On 20 December 2010 17:15, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: >> Marc Riddell wrote: >>>>> On 19/12/2010 23:07, Fred Bauder wrote: > >>>> There can be no viable alternative to Wikipedia. > >>> This is the type of thinking that sets you up to being blindsided. > >> In this case, that sounds like a feature, not a bug. > > > Specifically, that the only way Wikipedia will get itself any sort of > viable competitor is by allowing itself to be blindsided. > > Fortunately, a proper blindsiding requires something that addresses > structural defects of Wikipedia in such a way that others can use > them. > > (One idea that was mooted on the Citizendium forums: a general, > neutral encyclopedia that is heavy on the data, using SMW or similar. > Some of the dreams of Wikidata would cover this - "infoboxes on > steroids" at a minimum. Have we made any progress on a coherent > wishlist for Wikidata?) > > [And has someone trademarked Wikidata yet, or a suitable similar > concept if we're too late?]
Is there a general consensus about achieving a monopoly as a good goal. Is this part of some public strategy? Is this the position of WMF? Of chapters? I thought I heard some weeks ago on that mail list that diversity is good. That competitors are healthy. Could we have a clarification of positions about this? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
