Quelltext der Seite BrandWiki:Warum nicht Wikipedia?

Since there already exists information in the largest encyclopaedia in the world – why would anybody need another wiki? We love Wikipedia! But let's see some ideas.

==Why use BrandWiki instead of Wikipedia?==
; Old rules don't rule.
: Wikipedia is a grown platform, in internet terms it's old (15 years in 2018). Over the years, it has grown quite an administrative apparatus. Editing on Wikipedia follows, wait:
*[https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rules rules]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policies and guidelines]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines a list of guidelines]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines a list of policies and guidelines].
: It also has an own [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Wiki_rules.png image for rules], maybe symbolising the difficult undertaking. Among the rules, there are nice [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia 10 simple rules], also an advice to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules ignore all rules]. The article about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article how to write your first article] takes not less than 22 minutes to read.

: Wow! Here in the BrandWiki, you get [[BrandWiki:Editierrichtlinien|1 simple page with friendly guidelines]] and easy forms to fill out that won't need no introduction.

; Killer criterion&#58; Relevance.
: In Wikipedia, it's hard to survive if you are content that is not relevant to the great big public. Here in BrandWiki, it's okay to include the aspiring backyard fashion designer, as long as he has sold a single piece to somebody which has reached your hands over the vintage store table. In fact, that was the original idea: The small brands, not the big ones.

: Technically, a wiki is immensely scalable, so we don't fear the masses. When a brand has relevance for you, it might be relevant also for a second person. That's enough for us here.

; Transparency about opinions over neutrality.
: Wikipedia follows the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars neutral point of view]. While this shall be the goal of any information platform, sometimes it can be better to show individual opinions and mark them transparently as opinions - instead of just publishing pure facts. 

; Spread the power.
: Monopolisation, in any aspect, is maybe not a good idea: It's killing competition and gives power over many to a few. Wikipedia is a very strong brand. We still believe there is room for other wikis.

; Oh, and Semantics.
: Wikipedia has [https://www.wikidata.org Wikidata] and [http://wikiba.se/ Wikibase], but it doesn't use [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org Semantic MediaWiki], a wonderful technology on top of [https://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] that enhances the software by database functionalities. That means, changing the name of a category doesn't need 16,000 manual clicks – but one. Semantic MediaWiki is [[Special:Version|used here in BrandWiki]].

==Wikipedia's pages on brands==
Brand-related examples from the English Wikipedia:
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clothing_brands Clothing brands] (~200)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Food_product_brands Food brands] (~90)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosmetics_brands Cosmetics brands] (~80)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Brands brands], (sub)categories of brands
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand Wikipedia: Brand]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_brands Lists of brands] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_companies lists of companies])