Dear Stewart >Although the Henry Project has its flaws, I do not believe that this comparison to "Medieval Lands" is fair. This was not meant to be a comparison in all aspects, but only a comparison about one dilemma. The results, aims and efforts have clearly been very different in many ways. >You are certainly wrong about how the pages in the Henry Project were compiled. They are not "just documents turned into webpages" but have in every case been composed as webpages from the very beginning. Similarly, this was not meant to be a comment about an "unpolished look" but about the software and the amount of work which is manual, and therefore difficult to get done. This is a statement not only based on looking at the websites, but also reading the comments of the authors involved. Wikis simplify the writing of hypertext and footnotes etc and make an integrated website more or less automatically. >The problem with the wiki approach is that there are too many examples (like wikitree) where this has been a spectacular failure (viewed from quality of content, not degree of interest), which makes qualified individuals hesitate to get involved. In my opinion, any system which uses the approach of letting a lot of stuff in and then removing the bad part is doomed to fail. Whether or not that is true, that is not a necessary characteristic of a Wiki. Wikis are also used in these days by small organizations and companies just to store small amounts of knowledge. The most famous ones are in many ways extreme cases. There is nothing stopping a wiki being a "quality first" small project with a strict constitution. You would need a server. How many people do you need? Even if you just moved the current Henry project to a wiki and set rules so strict that every new edit required 100% consensus by all current editors, it would possibly be a set-up that would be more encouraging of incremental improvement than what you have now? I am playing Devil's Advocate of course. I suppose the idea is too shocking. :) Regards Andrew