[InGoldAndGreen]

Thank you so much!!! It's a project I've been wanting to have for awhile, so I'm glad that other people like it.

Fanwikis are my next target - probably a bigger amount of interest, and I'm hopeful that there will be a similar amount of consistency. I'll also need to work out what the interesting relationships to trace would be for fandoms - or see if I can parameterize that, since I suspect it varies a lot.

I now understand a bit better why Wikipedia isn't that popular as a base layer - it's built by humans, for humans. That can make it a bit tricky to parse for computers. There's no consistency to naming, labeling, or even organisation. There are some cultural standards, but they're not binding and tend to vary between sections. For instance, children are labeled as 'children' for most people, but 'issue' for a lot of monarchs, and 'offspring' for mythological characters.

[hrishi]

Yeah you're right, but it's still the biggest information resource we have. Some sort of effort towards making Wikipedia more machine readable - maybe through parsing or automated synonyms - would really go a long way there.