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