Stop with the detailed summaries, you're going to cost them sales! :)
j/k
Steve
On 3/8/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I just spoke to Natalie Hanman from the Guardian. This is to appear in Monday's paper, in the 'Office Hours' column in the Media section. This will be in the paper edition and *may not* be in the online edition (they tend not to put up the entire Media section).
A reader had written in saying they'd read about Wikipedia's unreliability and asked if Wikipedia was any good; and she also wanted to know if it was good for office workers at their desks. I said we weren't as good as Britannica as yet, but we were better than anything else on the web, so the more media we get saying how bad we are the more readers we get ... and office workers don't have the Britannica on their desk but they *do* have Wikipedia. For usefulness, I pointed out that as an IT contractor, I use Wikipedia as a reference work daily. It's fabulous for computer and technical stuff, to quickly get yourself up to speed on what a piece of jargon is in 60 seconds. And Nature measured us as equal to Britannica in science. And we were no.12 in the world on Alexa yesterday, and we've been no.1 reference site for months now.
So the main message was: we're not Britannica, but we're better than *anything* else readily available on the web. "We make the Web not suck." And we're actually good and useful as a reference work *right now*.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l