So it looks like a wiki composed of proprietary information... under the prominent logo of its "founders." Armin doesn't need my help to promote himself.

Why does design need it's own encyclopedia? I think it'd be more useful for this information to be in a regular encyclopedia (like the Wikipedia.) Lots of times when people are looking things up, they aren't going to know it's a design term, so they won't know to look in The Design Encyclopedia (which they won't even know exists.)

A.,

Yes, so far we are relying on "proprietary" information to help get us started. We are, and will be, slowly adding images and information as fast as we can. Hopefully in a few months ths proprietary information will merely be the setup for deeper design definitions. And, contrary to (un)popular opinion, I very much welcome Jason's mention of the design encyclopedia and promotion.

Steven,

Design needs its own encyclopedia because I don't see Wikipedia expanding their entries on the basis of design implications. For them, Kleenex is a "brand name" and all they offer is a description; for us, Kleenex, presents an opportunity to expand on the visual history of the brand and how it has manifested itself throughout history and how a simple thing like Kleenex, through its execution, can reflect its era. If this is not important I don't know what is.

Sorry, one more point:

> so they won't know to look in The Design Encyclopedia (which they won't even know exists.)

Never underestimate the power of Google. I don't expect (at least not yet) people to go, by default, to the design encyclopedia, but I trust that within a few months it will be a Google favorite that will show up in the very first results and eventually it might become a trusted source of information.

Okay, two more points:

> under the prominent logo of its "founders."

Why is "founders" in quotes?