On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:24:21 -0700
Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
> You're right, the majority of users find obscure maths
> and computing subjects more interesting than real
places.
I *would* like to emphasize the point Mark is making
here, and add to
it: Finding solid, *accurate* information online
about
technical
subjects is *incredibly* easy in comparison to
finding
information
about real places that aren't ultra-famous
and other
non-technical
subjects.
If I'm looking for information on a technical subject,
I head to
google, and only look to Wikipedia if it turns
out to
be hard to find
(at which point Wikipedia doesn't usually
have any
useful information
on it, but sometimes I get lucky).
If I'm looking for information on a country or a
person, I go straight
to Wikipedia. It usually has enough to get me
started,
at least. If it
had information on every local school in the
world,
it'd be even more
useful.
A fascinating perspective. The "Guinness Book of World
Records" is one of the most popular books ever, and yet
it's full of nothing but trivia. "Ripley's Believe It or
Not" was in the same league, and, in the 19th century,
"Haydn's Dictionary of Dates". That should tell us
something. At one time some people wanted to delete the
multitude of lists found on Wikipedia, but these have
enormously attractive powers.
There is more to an encyclopedia then stuffy narratives.
If we're lucky it may even have the information we're
looking for.
Ec
all right how much more must i get insulted for my
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l