NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/bit/listserv/notabene/2438

Text File | 1992-11-14 | 1.6 KB | 37 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!bcm!convex!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UNB.CA!GLB
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 92 11:54:26 AST
Sender:       Nota Bene List <[e-mail]>
Comments:     <[e-mail]>
From:         GLB0000 <[e-mail]>
Subject:      RE: WPCitation: Ibid competition
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notabene
In-Reply-To:  In reply to your message of THU 12 NOV 1992 21:48:49 EST
Lines: 24

> > I've used WPCitation.  It is cumbersome, clumsy, and driven via multiple
> > macros.  No comparison exists between Ibid and WPC.
> >
> I have used it, too.  It is clumsy.  Some of the features mentioned
> in the manual did not exist (about a year ago).  However, there is a
> new version out. I haven't seen it yet, but it is using the same
> "multiple macros" approach.

Though I've not used WPCitation, I would expect, given the
way WP works, that what you say is true.  You've missed my point,
however, when you say there is no comparison between the two.
You are suggesting that NBI will not loose current users to
WP with WPCitation.  No disagreement.  I certainly don't plan
on switching.  My point is that NBI's financial future is
dependent upon an expanding customer base, not merely upon
retaining current users.  At my institution at least, WP
users who were thinking about switching to NB in order to
gain Ibid like functions, no longer see this as necessary.
NBI has lost those potential customers.  For those of us
who would like to see a financially healthy NBI this cannot
be taken as good news.

Gary Bowden
[e-mail]