Gareth Owen wrote:
In todays Guardian -- a major British broadsheet newspaper -- Notes and Queries column (the version published on dead trees, rather than the website) a correspondent cites www.wikipedia.org as an authority on various Dukes Of Edinburgh. Might draw a little traffic.
What's interesting about this is what it tells us about the kinds of article that draw traffic. I have no doubt that the information mentioned there about the Dukes of Edinburgh is available on other sites, but we have it organized in one spot in a comprehensive way. Certain of our "List of" articles may seem trite and unimaginative, but I believe that they have an attraction for people who want this kind of summary information in one place, rather than going on an internet wild-goose chase. These chases are frustrating enough for experienced searchers, and impossible for others.
Ec
Wiki is weak in some areas but when it is good, (and the Duke of Edinburgh page is a classic example) it is very very good indeed. There are so many pages on wiki that are far far better than any other encyclopædia I have ever seen. And we can be so proud of what we have built and what we are building. When a heavily academic article is praised in a paper as credible as The Guardian, you know you are doing a damn good job.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail