Folks,
According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for
researchers than Britannica.
http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia
http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britanniaWhile
writing The Geek Atlas I used both
Keith Old wrote:
Folks,
According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for
researchers than Britannica.
http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia
snip
Initially, I’d find myself double-checking facts on Wikipedia by looking in
What I discovered was that Wikipedia trumps Britanncia all the time because
its articles are in more depth and provide better references. And the site
design means that Wikipedia is easily navigable and focuses on the content,
whereas Britannica’s site assaults the eyes with distractions.
Not
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for
researchers than Britannica.
http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia
These are great questions, and we're actually having a big meeting about
the project this afternoon, so I'll be sure to raise them to make sure
we all have the same notion. That said, a few of quick responses from my
perspective:
On 05/03/2010 08:15 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
Since it does seem
