Does it say server unavailable?
It's been gone for a year now. Bit lateWhat a shame ! will miss it once it is gone
It's been gone for a year now. Bit late![]()
This website appears to be gone now.
Has anything popped up? Before I stumbled across that website I was planning on creating something similar myself, but nowhere near as comprehensive. I thought it was perfect but only found it a short while before it shut down.I hope some successor to ARKive may pop up in the future, though I'm not sure how likely that is . . .
In regards to something of a comparable number of pictures? No, not really ...Has anything popped up? Before I stumbled across that website I was planning on creating something similar myself, but nowhere near as comprehensive. I thought it was perfect but only found it a short while before it shut down.
I think Wikipedia is more reliable than you are portraying it to be here. Sure, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and so errors or misinformation can slip through the cracks, but these are often reviewed and corrected very quickly. In my personal experience, Wikipedia is generally accurate and gives a good basic overview of the subject. The most useful parts of a Wikipedia article in my experience are the references and external links sections which usually link to either reputable sources or actual scientific papers or other academical sources that are detailed and accurate.And so, the public made it so that whatever reigns the 'animal encyclopaedia' scene of the internet today either completely-free use and as reliable as the most reliable "Joe", frequently using 1800s illustrations, or is overly commercialised with a sizable amount of dog product reviews.
Looking back I think I was being a bit harsh here a bit - Wikipedia for the large part does have a fair bit of good reliable information, and also works as a convenient gateway to peer-reviewed sources - but alas, its freely-sourced media, in my opinion anyways, is rather paltry offerings compared to what Arkive offered.I think Wikipedia is more reliable than you are portraying it to be here. Sure, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and so errors or misinformation can slip through the cracks, but these are often reviewed and corrected very quickly. In my personal experience, Wikipedia is generally accurate and gives a good basic overview of the subject. The most useful parts of a Wikipedia article in my experience are the references and external links sections which usually link to either reputable sources or actual scientific papers or other academical sources that are detailed and accurate.