I say screw it. Whats happened happened. If Microsoft is bad they will fail all by themselves. They don't need the rule of laws help.
Yeah? By your logic we should let all those priests who abused children off the hook because "Whats happened happened." Something tells me you should read up on the law
Second that. Tell Amnesty International, the Salvation Army, Doctors without borders, etc. to get a good business model, as donations are not good enough.
I'm not an encyclopedia editor. I don't have to answer that question.
Funny, you seem to be very vocal about exactly how one should go about constructing an encyclopedia.
Now what you don't understand is that the fact that the buyers of encyclopedias want information on diverse topics, there is no one topic whose inclusion or exclusion will make or break the encyclopedia's chances for a sale.
I never claimed that an article on a single topic would make or break the chances for a sale. What i did claim (in response to you utterance "Have you considered the possibility that there's a good reason for not including them?") is that a larger ammount of articles is better. The sellers of traditional encyclopedias would seem to agree, as they advertise the number of articles and number of words in their encyclopedia.
Re:Then why is this posted to the front page?
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
"Hiding" is not a fair way to describe the situation. Basically the purchases are still being debated, and it is out of our control that someone posted this to/. before everything was decided.
Firstly, you still haven't answered my question: why should an encyclopedia not contain an article on psychics.
Secondly, what don't you understand about the fact that people want information on many diverse topics that is in a summary form (ie. encyclopedic). That is the whole motivation for buying an encyclopedia. Sure, you could get library access and head over there every time you want some information on something. But I am rather inquisitive and want to know many things rather often (also eg. at 1am), so going to a library every time is not very practical.
Re:Voting with your dollars works both ways.
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
You haven't given any reason for not including an article on psychics in an encyclopedia. Why should I buy an entire book on psychics when perhaps all I'm interrested in is an encyclopedic article on psychics. (As well as perhaps a bunch of other topics that you don't find worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia)
There are many other uses for encyclopedia articles than a research paper or school work. Like eg. publishing a book on hikes in some area - and you include (from an encyclopedia):
a section on the history of the area,
a section on geographical features found there, etc.
And worse yet, because the articles are written by individuals in accordance with their preferences, some subjects are short of some basic information that a more well rounded article would include.
That is simply the nature of a collaborative project where participants are not rewarded monetarily.
You're talking about fair use, and there are limits to that. You can't use say the whole article on genetic engineering in one of your works, even if you give a proper reference.
A lot of knowledge does not actually need to be written by people who have specific expertise in that area. For example information on a geographic region.
There are also a lot of experts on wikipedia. I've encountered a couple of university professors editing articles.
Do you actually know anything about wikipedia. It is not just a website, but an encyclopedia which is licensed under the GFDL. It is therefore a free documentation issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Quantity:
Size of Wikipedia
A more detailed quantity comparison between Wikipedia, Encarta, and Britannica
Quality:
English Wikipedia Quality Survey
Wikipedia Quality Analysis
Projected growth:
Modelling Wikipedia's growth
Second that. Tell Amnesty International, the Salvation Army, Doctors without borders, etc. to get a good business model, as donations are not good enough.
"Hiding" is not a fair way to describe the situation. Basically the purchases are still being debated, and it is out of our control that someone posted this to /. before everything was decided.
Secondly, what don't you understand about the fact that people want information on many diverse topics that is in a summary form (ie. encyclopedic). That is the whole motivation for buying an encyclopedia. Sure, you could get library access and head over there every time you want some information on something. But I am rather inquisitive and want to know many things rather often (also eg. at 1am), so going to a library every time is not very practical.
You haven't given any reason for not including an article on psychics in an encyclopedia. Why should I buy an entire book on psychics when perhaps all I'm interrested in is an encyclopedic article on psychics. (As well as perhaps a bunch of other topics that you don't find worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia)
free (as in speach)
multilingual
collaboratively edited by anyone who wants to contribute
There are many other uses for encyclopedia articles than a research paper or school work. Like eg. publishing a book on hikes in some area - and you include (from an encyclopedia):
a section on the history of the area,
a section on geographical features found there, etc.
You're talking about fair use, and there are limits to that. You can't use say the whole article on genetic engineering in one of your works, even if you give a proper reference.
A lot of knowledge does not actually need to be written by people who have specific expertise in that area. For example information on a geographic region. There are also a lot of experts on wikipedia. I've encountered a couple of university professors editing articles.
Do you actually know anything about wikipedia. It is not just a website, but an encyclopedia which is licensed under the GFDL. It is therefore a free documentation issue.