4 ms·
I like the sentiment, and I would extend it to websites for just about anything. Often I'll use Wikipedia to learn about X instead of going to X's own website
by haberman 15y ago
I like the sentiment, and I would extend it to websites for just about anything. Often I'll use Wikipedia to learn about X instead of going to X's own website because Wikipedia will at least say what it is instead of blowing a bunch of marketing-speak at me and asking me to download a PDF whitepaper.
- swah 15y agoThe other day I was in the bathroom and there was an Oxford dictionary in front of me, so I looked at the definition for 4 words (root beer, ginger, tumbleweed, ?) in a couple minutes. Then I realized if I had done that on Wikipedia it would probably take me an hour.
- lparry 15y agoI'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Comparing reading a dictionary definition to an encyclopedia entry, and complaining that the encyclopedia had more detail? Perhaps it'd be a fairer comparison if you compared reading the first paragraph of the wikipedia article to the dictionary definition
- jacalata 15y agoPerhaps it'd be a fairer comparison if he compared reading the Encyclopedia Britannica to wikipedia. Or perhaps he's trying to make the point that sometimes all you needed was a definition, and you should have <your favourite search engine>'d "define: root beer" instead of going to wikipedia to be distracted?
- swah 15y agoYes, but I didn't knew the define trick, so Googling and going to the first result (always Wikipedia) is "consulting the dictionary" these days.