--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
That's my own intuition, but I have trouble figuring out how to actually distinguish between what we do now and that eventuality. I'm not altogether *sure* it's a bad idea either, especially if things can be broken down into useful chunks. For example, [[George Washington at blah]] or [[Controversy over the color of George Washington's slippers]]. I mean, if we collated all our Pokemon-related pages (pardon the obvious example), we probably have a small books' worth of material written on Pokemon already...
I think that is fine, so long as the 300+ pages you talk about are organized as a set of verifiable encyclopedia articles covering their own sub topics and not as parts of a hypertext book (or, heaven forbid, all on a single page). We can have a great deal of detail so long as we do not overwhelm readers with too much detail at any given point through the use of summaries where appropriate and links to articles that cover a sub topic in more detail. So by navigational choices readers should be able to zoom to the level of detail they need.
Many need quick overviews, most need a mid-level of detail, and some need a good deal of detail on particular aspects of a topic. Serving all those different user types is the goal of summary style.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/