That all said, more knowledge is better than less. Good work on creating this.
That all said, more knowledge is better than less. Good work on creating this.
There is also risk factor to a donations model for WP and to not having enough revenue to invest in the tools needed to go 1000x on the topics + other features that are important to build. If it means anything, I worked on my last co (Heyzap) for 9 years and its still running today. I can see the worry but there are many options on creating backups and dumps to the text, so we are agreement that more knowledge is better and thanks for the support.
I do believe there is space for non-Wikipedia knowledge repositories. Look at Wikia, for example. People do want to store all their fandom knowledge somewhere. It's just that Wikipedia might not be the place for it.
I also agree that the underinvestment in tools can limit contributions. Wikipedia's new visual editor is the biggest step they've taken in making editing easily accessible. They also have new translation and analysis tools. Not to mention all the specialized wikis under the umbrella - Wiktionary, Wikidata, etc. I do wonder if it's enough though.
Thanks for your work. I hope you can find a balanced business model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_co...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person/Wikida...
[2] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Data_access#Basic_imp...
And based on what information did you draw that conclusion? A well-articulated self-description from a VC-funded startup? Or does it mean some competitor failed in some way automatically makes it favorable and trustworthy?