Stan Shebs wrote:
We're already in competition with other online
sources, and how well
we're
competing governs both readership and the number of editors we can
attract.
For instance, when I add stuff to WP, I'm always looking for
opportunities
to add material that is available nowhere else online (only in print
previously, say), because that's something that makes WP a must-visit for
information-seekers. Images are part of that competition too, and we
should
be reluctant to handicap ourselves in the race, particularly when no
actual
threats have materialized (has there been even one outside demand to
remove
an image?)
Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race. Sure, we'd like
people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going
to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there
really is no competition. Already most people I know IRL turn to
Wikipedia first when they want to find out "what is [x]" in summary
form, while they used to resort to googling for [x], which tends to
produce less-reliable results than the Wikipedia article (where one
exists). Granted, these are people I know who have been influenced by
my Wikipedia-advocacy, but they wouldn't keep using it if it wasn't for
the information. I think this will only get more pronounced as we get
more and more information and make it better- and better-presented.
So I suppose I agree in some sense with your goals, but I see it as such
a foregone conclusion that we're going to "win" that competition---and
not by a small margin either---that it shouldn't really be our main concern.
-Mark