[krick]

Ah, my bad. I didn't sign up because I never sign up to i-don't-know-what and I didn't expect that I will find some "about page" after signing up, which seems to me like very natural thing to [do not] expect. Unfortunately I can't follow your link without signing up either, and service that behaves like that actually makes me inclined to go away and never turn back not matter what. So, no, I didn't read it, and I admit it very much might be the reason I don't understand what it is about.

But, still, what I said in the previous post are pretty general statements which I believe must be true to some degree for every single form of "wikipedia for news".

[MJHardy]

I suspect that after the site undergoes some further improvements, its content will be made visible to those without accounts (so that you would need an account to contribute but not to read).

[lsanger]

Yes, agreed. There are some issues (mostly having to do with scalability) we have to sort out before we launch to public view without login.

[krick]

But why you need people to log in to see about page? Just 1 static html page so I (not really me, because I spent a lot of time on that conversation anyway, but somebody, whatever) could decide if it's worth my time to sign up using real email account. It's, well, the point of about pages, to explain people what is that stuff they are looking at, and if they really want to go further. Scalability issues? That 1 static html page could be hosted anywhere, and, besides, if your servers aren't dying to host login page it wouldn't make very much difference anyway.

[tyang]

That's a good idea. Hope Larry considers it.

[lsanger]

It's certainly something we can consider now that we've soft-launched. We've thought about it in the past, and now I guess it is a good idea to consider it again!