> As I've said /repeatedly/ -- my issue is not with the format (i.e.,
> wiki vs non-wiki).
>
> I firmly believe there is a limit, probably in the single digits, to
> the number of places any specific piece of info or data _needs_ to
> be, on-line. Others appear to be arguing that the limit -if there
> is one- is closer infinity.
>
> Looking strictly at the US --
>
> each of the 50 individual states maintains an official website; and
> on each of those the name of the capital city is given.
>
> The same info (name of the capital city) is given on at least 5
> other sites, PLUS the official county-government website. For some
> states -- say West Virginia? -- that's more than 60 entries for the
> same bit of data.
>
> Moving into the originally-digital arena, the names of the states
> and their capital cities, and their counties and each of their
> seats, is on Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, USGenWeb, yahoo maps,
> teraserver, google-earth, mapquest...
>
> For West Virginia, we're now over 67 depositories for the same bit
> of info.
>
> On the USGenWeb, every state links to neighboring states.
>
> There is little reason to believe that the data on any new site
> (wiki or not) is likely to be more reliable than the state's own
> official government site. I don't believe West Virginia needs a
> 100th site naming Charleston as the state capital (as it has been
> since the 1870s). What it was before it got to Charleston is
> interesting trivia which fails to affect the fact that ALL
> government docs that survive are currently *IN* Charleston (NOT
> Charles Town).
>
> WHO is putting up the site is irrelevant. What method of
> presentation or format they chose is also irrelevant.
>
> It's like cars -- a person can drive only one at a time, so owning 3
> is overkill.
>
> Cheryl Singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hi Cheryl
Not to beat a horse that's not in a race, one of the advantages of
a wiki conversation is that when everyone else tires of the
conversation, you can take onto another page, an no one else HAS to
be annoyed---everyone can still read the conversation if they want
to, but its not in their face all the time. We can do that in this
format only by going off line---but then, those (few in number
perhaps) who are actually interested in the question, are cut out
completely.
But that said, and if the list mistress would prefer to see this
thread killed, AND you'd like to continue the discussion---I can
make a nice home for it as a forum on a wiki (G).
That said, I understand your issue here. There is, in fact mammoth
duplication on the web. Wiki's per se have nothing to do with that,
It is the nature of the beast. So let's not talk about wikis. Lets
focus on the actual concern. Rampant duplication of information on
the web.
I don't agree that "duplication" is necessarily its a bad thing. To
use your analogy--yes its true that you can only drive one car---at
a time. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have two cars. And
there are probably very good reasons why you might want to have
access to a pickup truck, and still make use of the Chevrolet
Malibu, or the BMW, or the SUV. All do essentially the same thing,
but they do it differently, and serve different purposes. Some do
it better than others.
And in any case, there's simply no hope of eliminating such
duplication. But like cars, web sites that don't work very well, or
don't serve the needs of the community, are not going to thrive.
Unvisited sites are eventually going to die off. And the first site
up is not necessarily going to be the site that survives. Poorly
implemented sites are a bit like Yugo's. After awhile, you don't
see them around anymore.
Q <quolla6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
