Taino187 (May 22, 2008 at 10:28 am)

Whats barbage?!?! Is that whats its called when you get a whole package of fishing hooks accidentally stuck thru your fingers?!?! :^)

LeonardSecond (May 5, 2008 at 3:04 pm)

Yeah, i think wiki is barbage too!

Edustus (May 2, 2008 at 11:16 am)

The current version is a beta demo! EOL will be, more or less, like this video shows. Be patient. =)

agolosha (March 22, 2008 at 2:25 am)

The video makes the site look more kewler than it actually is. Oh, and I think wikipedia is barbage.

alfburuburu (March 4, 2008 at 4:37 am)

the information of eol is supported by biologists and cientifics of the world!! wikipedia not!!

MightyTiny (March 3, 2008 at 8:01 pm)

How would it be any different? Right from this demo you can see that it'll have a graphical representation of the phylogenetic tree, which you can navigate - and geographical maps of locations of populations of the species. No primarily text-based resource can match the convenience and clarity of such visually navigatable resource; it makes the phylogeny of life tangible for any viewer of the site. So I see this as having the potential to stand head and shoulders above Wikipedia in it's field.

stereohode (February 28, 2008 at 10:24 am)

this site WILL be better for species than wikipedia because it is specially designed for it. and this project is much more comprehensive than wikipedia as well. i think it's an excellent idea!

sweiland75 (February 28, 2008 at 6:30 am)

Wikipedia could easily handle this kind of information. How would it be any different? How is it that what information found on the EOL is 100% accurate while Wikipedia is not? Both are regulated by the Internet community.

Dubzoomember (February 27, 2008 at 3:59 pm)

Yeah, but this is gonna be better

TakuyaMurata (February 27, 2008 at 9:21 am)

Um, Wikipedia. Have you heard of it?