On Sep 23, 2004, at 1:42 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
Le Thursday 23 September 2004 03:26, Brion Vibber a
écrit :
Certainly we could give them a stripped dump in
that timeframe, but I
think they'd be wasting a lot of money pressing it to disc in that
state. I can't support this as described.
Is Wikipedia that bad? ;o)
No I don't think so. There are obviously many stubs, incomplete
articles and
so on, but still I think that it is a valuable pice of work.
Or so I was told. ;o)
Wikipedia is a very valuable resource, but it's a *dynamic* one. If
you're going to throw away the advantages of our process, you'd better
have something else to fall back on.
There's a *lot* of crud in general. There will be mistakes. There will
be falsehoods. There will be 'FUCKFUCKFUCK' vandalism. And in six
months when they go to press, the Wikipedia on the web will be much
improved -- but every mistake in their published copy will be preserved
indelibly and it's us, not Mandrake, who's going to get the bad press
over it.
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)