Comments

• David Gerard

  2009-03-31 20:45:19

  Interesting story - I'd never heard that Windows 2000 was literally unbuildable after the permatemp apocalypse.

• David Gerard

  2009-03-31 19:35:50

  We're already asking Microsoft about freeing what they can for Wikipedia's use. And if they do, we will say lots of nice things about them. We've had some major successes freeing up image repositories of late. A lot of their content is licensed, but apparently they do have clear ownership of quite a bit.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-31 19:44:02

  Microsoft is busy killing access to knowledge at the moment.

• Jose_X

  2009-03-31 20:11:48

  This comment http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/31/encarta-dies/#comment-61327 belongs on this thread and should be fixed as follows:
  
  "touch" should have been "tush" [slang definition tush(3) here http://www.answers.com/tush ]

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-31 20:18:54

  I remember Microsoft cursing Wikipedia just over a year ago. it was not a 'formal' statement, though.
  
  And let's not forget Waggener Edstrom.

• Jose_X

  2009-03-31 20:08:38

  >> And if they do, we will say lots of nice things about them.
  
  Lying and touch-glossing should not be endorsed.

• twitter

  2009-03-31 14:34:44

  Traditional newspapers are rushing after this story but getting it all wrong. They dig up some interesting traffic stats but their perspective is grounded in the past and they are too terrified to "connect the dots" and see the publication revolution that's clear to free software advocates. Some mention M$'s financial troubles but most articles are stuck in the world of paper.
  
  The New York Times did a little research to deliver some interesting traffic statistics,
  
  

  In January, Wikipedia got 97 percent of the visits that Web surfers in the United States made to online encyclopedias, according to the Internet ratings service Hitwise. Encarta was second, with 1.27 percent. Unlike Wikipedia, where volunteer editors quickly update popular entries, Encarta can be embarrassingly outdated.

  
  
  That's from the usual source of flawed web statistics, but it's nice the NYT bothered to look.
  
  The Christian Science Monitor tries to "connect the dots" between encyclopedia and newspaper business models. They noted that paper encyclopedias used to cost $1,000 or so but did not mention that Wikipedia has an interesting and growing news section.
  
  The Wall Street Journal, which resisted online publication with all of it's fancy font might until it became another division of Fox News, does a nice job of looking back. They quickly summarized the history of Encarta and Wikipedia and actually tried to interview people from those places and Britanica. M$ declined to answer any useful questions, Wales said, "We're not in a business where we're trying to put anyone out of business," and Britanica admitted to having their ass kicked by Encarta in the 90s.
  
  None of these organizations understand the nature of electronic publishing. Some come close and talk about push vrs. pull or reduced costs and how well collaborative efforts seem to work. The whole thing remains frightening and unreliable black magic to them. Tom Wolf once famously derided his peers as "Little Mummies" but it's beyond that now. They are like Neanderthals rejecting cooked meat because they fear fire. The usual nonsense about vandalism is repeated, sometimes from vandalized Wikipedia articles, but the larger message of freedom is lost on them. I imagine them typing these articles with great difficulty on their Macs or Windows PCs, completely ignorant of the larger revolution that powers Wikipedia and their more enlightened peers. "Who needs more when you are happy with what you have got?" ask the heavy toothed monsters in their filthy caves even as chunks of their world collapse on them, "Beware fire and light, they will hurt you!"