On Oct 24, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/24/05, Justin Cormack
<justin(a)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?
Does Britannica also have separate articles on Encyclopedia
Britannica, Brokhaus Encyclopedia, Great Soviet Encyclopedia,
Encyclopedia Judaica, Etymologiae, Bibliotheke, Cyclopaedia, or
Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, Encyclopedie, Pseudodoxia
Epidemica, Lexicon technicum, or, for that matter, Wikipedia?
Because I bet if you count all of those (And probably a few more),
we've got more than EB on the subject, just broken into multiple
articles.
Which may well be a flaw on our part.
-Snowspinner