[mvanga]

The graph approach (e.g. Wikipedia) is pretty much useless without a search engine (e.g. Google) directing you to the first useful node in the graph. When is the last time you just jumped onto the Wikipedia homepage and found your way to the information you wanted?

So once you accept that a graph structure is useless without powerful search behind it, the advantages of the tree approach are more obvious: it provides a basic search mechanism through hierarchy, and still allows for a graph approach (via linking and duplication of content in multiple categories).

Also, maintaining documentation sucks. So there's that...

[pwdisswordfish0]

MDN uses a hierarchical structure—a mistake that should have been corrected 10 years ago—and it's awful.

> When is the last time you just jumped onto the Wikipedia homepage and found your way to the information you wanted?

Literally every day. If you haven't done this, the only explanation is that you haven't tried. Wikipedia's built-in search is fine (and also completely unnecessary more often than not, since you can guess most page titles and their URLs). In fact, I've had my browser's default search engine set to Wikipedia for probably 10 years now. If I want to Google something, it's either because I've already hit the Wikipedia article and it was wanting, or it's because I'm looking for something different in nature.

The claim that Wikipedia is junk without Google is itself junk.

[brundolf]

Is "powerful search" really necessary? I feel like you could get by with simple keyword-matching and maybe browse-by-tag