Steve Vertigum wrote:
Ive looked at some of the material on Disinfopedia,
and think most of it too valuable to leave to it
alone. I would encourage at some point an integration
of those date to Wikipedia-- as much of it is
encyclopedic.
The only failing of Disinfo that I can see so far
(besides the fact that "Disinfo" doesnt bring up DisP
on a Google search) is its disconnection from
Wikipedia, and the division of energy that it
represents.
Sorry for not answering this sooner. I'm rather busy these days, so I
haven't been reading all my email. I'm not opposed in principle to
merging the Disinfopedia into Wikipedia, but I'd like to see what
other Wikipedians think of the idea.
Not to mention NPOV -- that the occasional crass
comment actually hurts the legitimacy of the DisP as a
source.
Point taken. The Disinfopedia is still very young, and hasn't yet
achieved the maturity of the Wikipedia.
Respectforking yours,
Har har. Technically, though, I don't think the Disinfopedia is a fork.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (
www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------