The Fotopedia start-up hit a pothole. It uses Wikipedia entries as its framework for photographs, mostly from Flickr. Soon after the fotopedia venture launched, its linchpin Wikipedia began devouring its own questionable credibility — well publicised defections of contributors, resulting in a serious decline of support. 
But apparently it did not discourage investors, who put another million dollars into Fotopedia. Management simplified its product offering by shifting from a desktop client to web only. Fotopedia went back to the market, contacting photographers to join them.
Last week I found one of their invitations in my spam filter, and fished it out cautiously. It was from “James” and the subject “Take part in a photo encyclopedia.” Instantly I had visions of Wikipedia’s palace revolution and decided I did not want to make Wikipedia’s problems into my problems — even if they were filtered through Fotopedia’s new spiel.
I touched the delete button. But then, I wussed-out — I left the e-mail in electronic limbo — deciding only to think about it some other time.
Like now (it’s been a week). I still don’t want to get into the Wikipedia donneybrook, but the Fotopedia offering includes some widgets I might really want. I have a project in mind (not the same as a project in hand) that I was thinking to use with Flickr and Slideshare photo widgets. These Fotopedia widgets might be better.
What to do? A smart person would probably make an analytical comparison of the two photo widget packages and pick one. I may not be that person. I might pick them both, run them in virtual side-by-side comparison, and then pick one. Maybe.
What if I wuss-out again and can’t settle on one? Then I’ll have two sets of widgets running in the same presentation. Oh, boy.
I’m so confused.
