It’d be interesting to work out why projects like Wikipedia and StackOveflow succeeded, while Arbital didn’t, to such an extent.
I had some experience being involved in Citizendium which failed. To me it feels like the key difference is openness to contribution.
Both Wikipedia and StackOverflow make it easy for anybody to get involved.
Eric recently shared a link to a post he wrote on Arbital on Facebook. I could either answer on Facebook or an Arbital. Given that Arbital didn’t gave me a text field in which I could write my comment it was easier to answer on facebook and that’s what I did.
Arbital also might be too slow. It’s a general pattern that page loading time matters a great deal and I’m not aware of any successful website that is that slow in 2017.
I had some experience being involved in Citizendium which failed. To me it feels like the key difference is openness to contribution.
Both Wikipedia and StackOverflow make it easy for anybody to get involved.
Eric recently shared a link to a post he wrote on Arbital on Facebook. I could either answer on Facebook or an Arbital. Given that Arbital didn’t gave me a text field in which I could write my comment it was easier to answer on facebook and that’s what I did.
Arbital also might be too slow. It’s a general pattern that page loading time matters a great deal and I’m not aware of any successful website that is that slow in 2017.