|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 05/08/06 10:43
Greg N. wrote:
> An example of solid content is http://wikipedia.org
Ehem, Wikipedia is by definition not solid. It is by definition a site
that can be edited at any moment by anyone. In practice it isn't really
that "democratic", but it surely is highly mutable and mostly in
unpredictable ways, and you won't even know who wrote or edited its
content. It surely gives the _impression_ of a good encyclopedia by its
appearance.
There are lots of examples of sites of solid content, so it was
unfortunate that you picked up a wrong one. To mention just one, the
English dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/ is useful to virtually
everyone, since we all need English, more or less, and we all know it
imperfectly, more or less. Too bad the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary
gives a somewhat wrong _impression_ (too much navigation, too little
space for actual content).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|