Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/12/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 12/12/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > But then again, I have my doubts Wikipedia should be calling itself an
> > encyclopedia in the first place. It's not really an encyclopedia,
> > it's a website for a group of people who are building an encyclopedia.
> > I remember arguing that years ago on IRC, though, and I lost the
> > argument. Most Wikipedians insist that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
> > even though common sense says that it is not.
> Yet.
I think that's implied in what I said. We're
building an
encyclopedia. We haven't produced one yet, at least not in English.
Suggested soundbite: "It's not a polished encyclopedia, it's the raw
materials for one."
But considering this obvious beta is a top-30 website, there's clear
demand for what we offer. Saying "no no no we produce the materials
for others to distribute" may well be as disingenuous as when Mozilla
claimed the same.
German Wikipedia arguably *has* produced an
encyclopedia.
With considerable assistance from Directmedia, the outside company
that actually publishes it.
But I think commercial republishing of our content is entirely within
not merely the GFDL, but our mission: USE OUR STUFF! THAT'S WHY IT'S
THERE!
- d.