In article ,
wrote:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe
Yep. I was just in 4 of those countries in that region.
???
I was in most or even in all of the countries in that region... And I
still live in one of them. I don't see the point though...

Beats me. You were the person to cite the link.

Maybe you were attempting to describe linguistic differences as they
relate to geography?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Europe

Yep. That's where I was talking about.
Inconsistent map quality. Try non Wikipedia sources.
What for?
:-)

Better maps ;^)

There's a growing number of web and non-web resources toward that area.
But the future will still be China.

Oh, I see... Something like 'Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam' ?

If you care to put it that way.


Wikipedia is a marginal quality reference.

IMHO it's a good first reference, though.

Depends on the topic.
The guy who runs the foundation (have heard him before) is speaking in
SF on Friday evening. A slew of net knowledgeable people discuss
Wikipedia and other wikis. It's a job. It's part of my job.

I spent $800 on my communications on my phone alone while I was in Europe
for just over a month. One of the travel web sites was a Wiki (the
software, they didn't use the prefix). One page had a simple typo:
1600 feet when feet should clearly have been meters (it wasn't that far
North to have skiing that low).

Me? I fixed that typo.

Wikipedia is a little better than that travel wiki in part because
it has more eyes and the quality of those eyes tends to be better
(more concern).
In speaking with a knowledge friend with Microsoft at Stanford Univ. we
agree the quality of the reference is proportional to the involvement of the
people using it. If you are going to use it for school work,
you aren't going to get into Stanford.

IMO it's an OK first reference.

--