3 ms·
Sorry, they deserve all the criticism they are getting. The problem is not that they have few mistakes here and there, it is that every single article I have tr
by hristov 17y ago
Sorry, they deserve all the criticism they are getting. The problem is not that they have few mistakes here and there, it is that every single article I have tried has been composed of a bunch of mostly incomprehensible unrelated sentences randomly ordered and placed next to each other with no connection.
If you evoke an encyclopaedia in the mind of your user, the user will expect what they are getting is an at least somewhat encyclopaedia-like thing. I.e., that it is understandable, that sentences follow each other to make coherent paragraphs, etc. In this respect, Cpedia completely falls on their faces.
- thorax 17y agoWhat if they had a disclosure (maybe until things get "better") at the top in bright bold red that said: "Cpedia will quite often be wrong or odd. The web is quirky and we're trying to make sense of it. Don't take anything below seriously just yet. Let us know what parts of this article you like, though." Would that make people criticize them less or give them more slack?
- swombat 17y agoThat would still be incorrect. For all the searches I tried (including a number of people for whom "other people write more about them than they write themselves" is true) the results are laughably bad. Maybe if they changed it to: "Cpedia will almost always be wrong and nonsensical." But then, why release it?