Wikipedia Founder Introduces Wiki Magazine Sites

KingJawa writes "Wikipedia blew away Encyclopedia Brittanica, but can the model be used to upset the magazine industry? Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, thinks so. His company, Wikia, today announced three open-source magazine-style sites where users can write about news, opinion and gossip — one magazine wiki each for politics, entertainment, and local interests. Each open-source magazine hands total editorial control to the readers, allowing them to read, write, edit, and dictate the editorial feel for each topic."

A lawsuit waiting to happen

[SilverJets]

Given that Hollywood stars have sued tabloids in the past for printing false and/or damaging articles these Wiki Magazines really seem like a bad idea. What is to stop someone from posting something complete false, degrading or career damaging in the entertainment.wiki? Who will be responsible when the affected party seeks monetary compensation for the perceived damage?

Gentleman's?

[Shadow Wrought]

The real question is, what happens when they enter the market for , ahem, Gentlemen's Magazines? Since they are all read for the articles anyway...

Re:They already have this

[DietCoke]

Exactly. So many websites have sprung up with the expectation that "if you provide them with a web-based gui editor, they will come" - yet they do virtually nothing for the submitter but provide them with hosting space. Considering the cost of data versus the cost of paying for content creation, I can understand why it's a alluring business idea. The problem is that it really leaves you exposed to market elements - what happens if people get bored with the service (*cough* Myspace *cough*). As well, unless NOONE is paying for content, content submitters that turn out quality product will invariably gravitate towards the provider that can provide the largest audience and highest reward.

Don't get me wrong, there are some folks who will love just seeing their name in print. But the vast majority of people know they can already do that without having to cast their lot in with this place. Unless Wales can provide some additional value to the user aside from a little exposure, I don't see this one differentiating itself from the 50,000 other websites looking for content creators.

And really, I don't blame Wales for giving this a shot. I just think it's a flawed business model that doesn't factor in the competition and economics of user-generated content.

Re:Wiki did not blow away Britannica

[malsdavis]

Additionally, the encyclopaedia Britannica is predominantly a printed encyclopaedia, whereas Wikipedia is entirely a digital / online encyclopaedia.

The two are in less competition than many people realise. Sure wikipedia probably killed off Britannica's on-line subscription revenue dreams but - although I do not know their subscription figures - judging on subscription figures for similar print media which has transferred to the web (newspapers, dictionaries, other encyclopaedias) I bet it was extremely low anyway.

Encyclopaedia Britannica's printed edition is still doing pretty well. Personally I think it is far better than Wikipedia for times when I am studying through books at my desk, but Wikipedia is better for times I want to quickly lookup something whilst using the internet.

I bet that is the way it will stay for quite some time, the printed and online worlds suit quite different situations, ...hence the slow uptake of e-books.

Not that big a Wiki Fan

[queenb**ch]

I no longer write anything on Wikipedia. I've been in the process of crafting an article, saved it, and then seen it come up for deletion because the category editors didn't like it. Now mind you, this was a stub, so anything that I put there that's accurate is better than what was there - which was nothing. It usually takes me quite a while to write an article, especially when I'm citing original sources and marshaling all of my facts, dates, etc. The third time that this happened to me, I started poking around. There's a very political structure to the Wiki editing that is, IMHO, very *un*-cool.

2 cents,

Queen B.