[WikiEN-l] Re: Reliable, selectable content

Sat Apr 9 03:53:01 UTC 2005

Fastfission a écrit:
> I've been reading some of these 1.0 discussions for some time but I'm
> still not sure what the point of this will be. To make money? I find
> it really unlikely that anybody willing to spend money on an
> encyclopedia this day and age would do it for one compiled by
> anonymous authors online (at a site they could look at for free). The
> "people who pay for encyclopedias" market (especially since many new
> and and old computers come with encyclopedias bundled with them, which
> seem all but useless to me) would seem unlikely to overlap much  with
> the "people who would respect Wikipedia" market.

I am personnaly supportive of a 1.0.
However, I strongly support the concept of wikireaders.

The whole point of it ?
Not making money, no. Simply, trying to achieve a certain goal, give 
access to information to the largest number of people on earth.

This include those without net access or even without computer access.
And all those who just do not like using such a technical plateform.

> I think a paper Wikipedia would really take out the whole point of
> what makes Wikipedia good. You lose the collective effort, the
> knowledge that if it says something that you think is wrong or poorly
> worded, you, yes YOU!, can just up and change it and you've probably
> done a good thing. That's what makes Wikipedia useful and fun -- the
> information is great, often better than other encyclopedias who will
> remain unmentioned, but isolated from the Wiki context it's just a
> 'pedia, not a Wikipedia.

Yes, but ultimately (let us try to be convince at that...), though it is 
certainly an *individual* goal, this is not the global goal. The global 
goal is not to have fun, nor even to "build" an encyclopedia. It is to 
spread free knowledge.

> And it seems that donations seem to provide a better income source
> than selling DVDs would ever likely generate.
> 
> Is it not about money? What's it about? I looks suspiciously like
> paper-envy, which is just silly. Wikipedia succeeds because it is not
> paper, because it is sprawling and often quite unconventional, because
> it uses hypertext, because it is editable. Remove any of those
> elements completely and it's just a set of quasi-reliable data served
> up by perhaps too many cooks. The second we produce a static
> Wikipedia, the second that EB blowhard will be right in his assessment
> of us.

When parts of wikipedia are subperfect, readers will benefit from having 
access to them. We can perfectly have a live wikipedia, and static 
versions of it.

> Wikipedia is nothing if it is static -- I don't even like to browse it
> when editing is not working; what's the point? I suddenly am
> transformed into a passive subject, just another guy watching
> television. I come to Wikipedia because it lets me be a participant,
> an editor, an active agent. I don't think I'm alone in this, I think
> it's the entire appeal which makes people want to fork over their cash
> when the donation cup comes around. It's an appeal that I think will
> always generate more money than would something as crass as a DVD
> edition.

Having stable versions will not strip you of your fun. Some will take 
care of stable versions. You will have fun on the live version. But the 
ultimate goal is not to garantee editors fun. It is not to make money. 
It is to offer knowledge.

> That's how I see it, anyway.
> 
> FF

> On Apr 8, 2005 7:26 PM, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> 
>>Tony Sidaway (minorityreport at bluebottle.com) [050408 23:45]:
>>
>>
>>>I don't see that it has to be that radical.  If people disagree with a
>>>particular choice of subjects, they can print and sell their own version
>>>with their own preferred choice.  It's all GFDL.  There's no need for
>>>warring, except between the people who may be putting up the money to have
>>>this project done--and I suspect this would be an outside body in any case
>>>so it's their choice, not ours.
>>
>>You do have a point there - we may do a DVD, but we probably wouldn't print
>>and distribute paper ourselves, or at least not the first version. Having
>>articles of a good rating to select from would be something a commercial
>>editorial board could actually achieve in feasible commercial time.
>>
>>
>>- d.
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> 