Subject: Re: near/medium future digital media economics
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:44:06 -0700
Thu, 18 May 2006 19:44:06 -0700
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:
>>>>>>             
>
>     Thomas> Now, if said experts could more easily go momentarily
>     Thomas> sandbox themselves, work stuff out, and put up a face --
>     Thomas> then we'd be back in network territory.
>
> What makes you think that they can't, or don't?
>
> The problem is not *momentary* sandboxing.  It's what happens *after*
> publication.
>
>
>   
We're saying the same thing in different words.  Ok, yes, "momentary" was
a misleading word choice.   All I meant is that said experts don't need or
necessarily benefit from completely excluding public participation even if
that's useful for an initial statement.   Of course, the critical thing
is that they can win on the merit of their content rather than by winning by
controlling  a centralized site like Wikipedia, and related to that, 
that they can
develop their content without having to fight hard to avoid its corruption
by <derogatory-category> Wikipedia folks sitting on entries.

All of this comes down to serious technical flaws in Mediawiki but that's
a whole separate subject.  (Web 3.0? :-)

-t



Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
"Thomas" == Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:
            

    Thomas> Now, if said experts could more easily go momentarily
    Thomas> sandbox themselves, work stuff out, and put up a face --
    Thomas> then we'd be back in network territory.

What makes you think that they can't, or don't?

The problem is not *momentary* sandboxing.  It's what happens *after*
publication.


  
We're saying the same thing in different words.  Ok, yes, "momentary" was
a misleading word choice.   All I meant is that said experts don't need or
necessarily benefit from completely excluding public participation even if
that's useful for an initial statement.   Of course, the critical thing
is that they can win on the merit of their content rather than by winning by
controlling  a centralized site like Wikipedia, and related to that, that they can
develop their content without having to fight hard to avoid its corruption
by <derogatory-category> Wikipedia folks sitting on entries.

All of this comes down to serious technical flaws in Mediawiki but that's
a whole separate subject.  (Web 3.0? :-)

-t