On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:52 +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/24/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
The Britannica guy wants us to write 26000 words in one article about encyclopaedias, obviously hasnt understood the web.
Actually his point wasn't that we should produce 26,000 words. It was rather that by contrast to the Britannica article of that length, ours runs to a mere 2000. This is surprisingly short, given the subject. If we can manage 750 words on Squeaky Fromme, why so few on Encyclopedia?
But how much of this would be in other articles? I suspect most. There are lots of articles in the category. It is true that is pretty crap with respect to history and has too much POV stuff, and doesnt talk about lots of stuff it should though.
Justinc