Veropedia: Difference between revisions
Casey Abell (talk | contribs) m grammar |
Casey Abell (talk | contribs) elim duplicate reference to number of articles - it's already in the lede paragraph |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Another difference from the English Wikipedia is the exclusion of [[fair use]] images and other content. The Veropedia FAQ states: "We have decided to...go back to the core principles of the project by focusing on free content. Only by insisting on free content can we revert the current trend of extending copyright and encourage people to release their content to the public."<ref name="Veropedia FAQ" /> The FAQ also states that similar projects in languages other than English may be launched in the future, and attempts to distinguish Veropedia from "expert-driven" projects such as [[Citizendium]]. As required by its use of Wikipedia material, all Veropedia content is licensed under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]].<ref name="main page" /> |
Another difference from the English Wikipedia is the exclusion of [[fair use]] images and other content. The Veropedia FAQ states: "We have decided to...go back to the core principles of the project by focusing on free content. Only by insisting on free content can we revert the current trend of extending copyright and encourage people to release their content to the public."<ref name="Veropedia FAQ" /> The FAQ also states that similar projects in languages other than English may be launched in the future, and attempts to distinguish Veropedia from "expert-driven" projects such as [[Citizendium]]. As required by its use of Wikipedia material, all Veropedia content is licensed under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]].<ref name="main page" /> |
||
As of November 2007, the site currently consists of around 4000 articles, in contrast with Wikipedia's 2 million.<ref name=Wired /> |
|||
==Criticism and evaluation== |
==Criticism and evaluation== |
||
Revision as of 11:45, 28 November 2007
 November 2007 | |
Type of site | Internet encyclopedia project |
|---|---|
| Available in | English |
| Owner | Veropedia, Inc. |
| Created by | Wikipedia editors including Danny Wool |
| URL | http://en.veropedia.com/ |
| Commercial | Yes |
| Registration | Not required to read, required to contribute |
Veropedia is a for-profit beta site launched in late October 2007 by Wikipedian Danny Wool to mirror stable versions of selected English Wikipedia articles.[1][2] Under Veropedia's model, Wikipedia articles are selected and edited at Wikipedia to what is judged to be a state acceptable to Veropedia and then ported over. As such, all editing occurs at Wikipedia.[3] Unlike Wikipedia, which is run by the non-profit charitable organization the Wikimedia Foundation, Veropedia is a for-profit organisation, supported by advertising. [4] As of November 2007, the site contained over 4500 articles copied from the English Wikipedia.[5]
Development
Veropedia was started by a group of experienced Wikipedia editors, including Danny Wool, who had prior experience editing a variety of reference works including Encyclopedia of the Peoples of the World[6] and was a member of the Wikimedia Foundation until Spring 2007[7]. As of November 2007 roughly 100 Wikipedia editors are involved in the project, which is also seeking the help of academics who have worked on Wikipedia.[6] Terry Foote, another longtime Wikipedian working on the project, was quoted on Veropedia's efforts to provide more accurate information and to overcome what he saw as Wikipedia's problems: "When we first signed on with Wikipedia our goal was to build a citadel of knowledge. But now it's more like ancient Rome, and the Visigoths and the vandals are coming over the walls."[7]
In contast with Wikipedia's donation-based model, Veropedia accepts paid advertising, such as the Amazon.com advertisements currently in place.[2] Danny Wool commented: "I was in charge of fundraising for Wikipedia, and I feel a lot more comfortable taking ads from Amazon than the donations of high school students."[6]
Another difference from the English Wikipedia is the exclusion of fair use images and other content. The Veropedia FAQ states: "We have decided to...go back to the core principles of the project by focusing on free content. Only by insisting on free content can we revert the current trend of extending copyright and encourage people to release their content to the public."[3] The FAQ also states that similar projects in languages other than English may be launched in the future, and attempts to distinguish Veropedia from "expert-driven" projects such as Citizendium. As required by its use of Wikipedia material, all Veropedia content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.[5]
Criticism and evaluation
Nicholas Carr, a critic of Web 2.0 in general and Wikipedia in particular, has criticized Veropedia as trying to "scrape" the "cream" of Wikipedia.[4] Carr has also stated that Veropedia has an unclear interface with clicks bouncing one back and forth between Wikipedia and Veropedia.[4]
Tim Blackmore, an associate professor at the Faculty of Information and Media Studies of the University of Western Ontario, was sceptical of this project, since there are already encyclopedias in existence where "content is checked and articles are reviewed". The main lure of the internet, according to him, is "free information" and Wikipedia has already emerged as a pioneer in open content information resources.[8]
A different evaluation in The Australian said Veropedia "seems more likely to succeed" than Citizendium, another recently founded online encyclopedia, because "it is less directly competitive" with Wikipedia. The story opined that both Veropedia and Citizendium "should in theory help improve the fairness and accuracy of available online information about many contentious topics although the academic bent to each raises questions over what, exactly, they will construe as fair when it comes to coverage of corporations and their actions.[9]
A story in Wired discussed whether Veropedia (and Citizendium) could avoid some of the same problems that Wikipedia has supposedly encountered: "Though office politics and internecine bickering abound at the Wikimedia Foundation -- one former insider described the atmosphere as "MySpace meets 'As the World Turns' for geeks" -- both Wool and Sanger deny that internal squabbles were why they started their own encyclopedias. Whether their ventures fall prey to the same turf wars, bureaucratic quagmires and academic catfights as the site that spawned them remains to be seen."[7]
References
- ^ "Filing information for Veropedia with Florida". Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
- ^ a b Matthew Sparkes (2007-11-06). "Wikipedia spins-off another rival" (HTML). PC Pro. Retrieved 2007-11-13.
- ^ a b Veropedia FAQ
- ^ a b c Nicholas Carr (2007-10-29). "Veropedia and the Wikipedia mine". Retrieved 2007-10-31.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ a b "Veropedia main page". Retrieved 2007-11-07.
- ^ a b c Leslie Scrivener (November 4, 2007). "It's called Veropedia. Its goal: To create something that students and teachers can rely on". The Toronto Star. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
- ^ a b c Dan Tynan (2007-11-06). "Wikipedia's Inner Circle Keeps Producing Competitors". Wired News. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
- ^ Mike Hayes (2007-11-07). "Veropedia aims to be a legit wiki" (HTML). The Gazette, University of Western Ontario. Retrieved 2007-11-13.
{{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - ^ Stephen Ellis (2007-11-20). "Slowing down spin in wikis world". The Australian. Retrieved 2007-11-20.
{{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help)
