h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The best part of the Guide is the fact that it isn't factually based, like Wikipedia - or, at least, doesn't have to be. I understand that the Editted Guide is based in reality. But the strength of the Guide, and what makes it different from encyclopedias, is that it tells you things you can actually use - like, what corner store sells the best ice cream. It doesn't matter what is factually The Best Ice Cream if there is no place close by where you can get it. In real life, you have to choose between 35th and 50th place best and you'd just like to know where you can go to get the best you can without having to drive 100 miles to get it.

This is just an example. But opinion, rather than facts, theory extrapolated from reality I find to be the strength of the Guide.

I hope I have expressed myself clearly. If not, please let me have another go.

Cheers

wikipedia factually based?

wikipedia is, essentially, the same as H2G2, i.e. Peer reviewed...There was a recent case where someone found an article about themselves on wikipedia which, while largely true, contained some quite disturbing untruths about them - attributing (if I remember correctly) Nazi sympathies, etc.. (please correct me if I'm remembering this bit badly, as I really can't remember that much about it, but it was in the newspapers recently).

Wikipedia got taken to court 'cos someone put a hoax entry in to wind up a workmate apparently.

Lots of links to it on here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

zdt

Still, I can't see any difference in effect between wikipedia and H2G2 - and H2G2 has been going for MUCH longer...

(so why don't the beeb mention us, huh, why? They're embarrased that's why, we're like the relative that sits in the corner burbling away to itself at Christmas ... )

I think the main difference is that we have a community and they don't.

And, I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to find anything worth reading on Wikipedia....

Really? I've learnt much from it. The basics and history of IP, TCP, telnet, DNS, packet switching, SMTP, POP, DHCP etc are explained much better on Wikipedia than they are here. Do we even have edited entries on any of those to the inter-linkable extent that they do on Wikipedia?

Well, it's ok, but I find it very dry is what I mean. Good factual stuff but lacks the quirks we have here, where it's far more fun.

I have no idea what all those things you mentioned mean. Probably because I don't spend any time on Wikipedia

I still don't know a whole lot about them, but it opened up the workings of the Internet just a bit for me

perhaps the reason there aren't decent entries on those things you mentioned (all pretty techie) is that it has always been easy to find decent info about those subjects elsewhere on the net!

I think wiki's main strength is its open source approach (i.e. it uses open source software (wiki) & is (I think) spread over many different computers (a bit p2pish) - that bit may well be wrong...