<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia's commercial arm targets European brands[/b]
Marketing
Wikia, the commercial version of the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, is opening a London-based sales house to ...



View the article

<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia's commercial arm targets European brands[/b]
Media Week (registration)
Wikia, the commercial version of the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, is opening a London-based sales house to service European brands and advertising ...



View the article

<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia's Wales' commercial venture targets European brands[/b]
Media Week (registration)
Wikia, the commercial venture backed by the founder of online encyclopaedia Wikipedia Jimmy Wales, is opening a London-based sales house to service European ...

and more »

View the article

<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia's Wales' commercial venture targets European brands[/b]
Marketing
Wikia, the commercial venture backed by the founder of online encyclopaedia Wikipedia Jimmy Wales, ...

and more »

View the article

<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />b]Wikipedia's Wales' commercial venture targets European brands[/b]
Marketing
Wikia, the commercial venture backed by the founder of online encyclopaedia Wikipedia Jimmy Wales, ...

and more »

View the article

It's funny to me, that "Wikia" or "Wikia, Inc." are so unknown to the wider world, that journalists have to go through such machinations to get the story back around to something they've heard of (i.e., "Wikipedia"). Seriously, how ridiculous is a headline like "Wikipedia's Wales'..."?

Further demonstrating that Wales would be nothing without Sanger's invention, Wikipedia. And that Wikia would be nothing without Sanger's invention, Wikipedia.

Please, Greg. Sanger's not the sole founder of Wikipedia, and you're being worse than Jimbo in trying to claim that he is.

Neither Wales nor Sanger deserves that title. The real story is far more nuanced.

Hey did they just snip Gerard's screed from the comments?

I didn't call him the "founder", I said it was his "invention", as in, spawned from his mind.



Gerard's screed is on another article.

I didn't realize I was slicing open a straw man. After all, in your words:

I never knew it all spawned (lovely choice of words) from Sanger's head; I was always under the impression that Ben Kovitz was the bright one. Wales, on the other hand, seems to be the originator of the "free encyclopedia" idea, insofar as he was inspired to start Nupedia.

In any case, there's little doubt that your comment at the article was an attack, hence your focus on Wales' failed endeavours. I find this distasteful. Should I attack Sanger because Citizendium has only 20-odd persistent editors, or because apparently no one has heard of WatchKnow? I don't want to push that sort of thing, but what you wrote comes across similarly.

Please don't make me defend Wales. Instead, consider how you can make your comments more cogent, on-topic, and civil. Criticism, not attacks.

Well, I like it!

Milton Roe