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