On 03/14/12 2:29 PM, Joan Goma wrote:
Catalan Wikipedia has about 10 times more pageviews than them. If they use a free license and use a wiki then their professionals can copy our best articles and review them and we can copy their content. 7,8% of their page-views go there from Catalan Wikipedia. They have 350.000 articles and Catalan Wikipedia 360.000 but there are about 120.000 articles that are not the same. If we copy from them the articles we don't have then Catalan Wikipedia can grow to 480.000 articles suddenly and page-views can grow about 15%. Copied articles have to contain links to the source and acknowledge authors. Their traffic can easily be duplicated.
I don't think that copying articles is the way to go. If the two projects have separate articles on the same subjects that's still a very good thing. They can still maintain their "professional" standards, whatever that means. The reader can compare the two and draw his own conclusions.
So their balance is affected by: *Save costs by using free software. *Save costs and grow faster by reusing contents from wikipedia. *More than duplicate income from advertisement. *Possibility to increase their incomes from governmental aids and grants by publishing using free licenses. Summing up all this the impact in profits is huge. I tried to convince them one year ago but until now I have not succeeded. I think the main barrier is fear to some for profit company copying their content and exploiting it commercially like them.
Indeed! You are presenting them with a counter-intuitive business model. If they believe in an expert reviewed project they still have to market it that way.
But don't worry. I can be very persistent.
I've noticed. :-) Ray _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
