>>280130411
There's nothing inherently "wrong" with HTML. During the mid to late 90s, when the Internet was just beginning to take off, nearly every website was built using plain HTML, often with CSS for visual styling. The problem is that using HTML/CSS alone is limiting, especially with todays internet standards. Other languages and tools were popping up to go beyond the limits of HTML/CSS, such as JavaScript for interactivity, server-side languages like PHP for dynamic content, and databases like MySQL for storing and retrieving information.

Let's say you were running a blog website, which has a main page and the individual post pages themselves. If you were just abiding strictly by HTML alone, you would have to:
>make entirely new .html pages for each new page
>copy and paste the same layout and styling to maintain consistency
>since everything is static, you would have to manually edit the main page every time you added a new blog entry
while if we use something like PHP/MySQL, all we have to do:
>create a new blog entry (through it's own interface)
>it automatically gets added to the main page

As you can see, trying to start a "wiki" with just HTML/CSS has shown to be nothing but trouble. The results are less than desirable, especially when compared to the older wiki, which used MediaWiki, the same software that Wikipedia uses.

TLDR: The Rukiafaggot is limiting himself purely out of ignorance and poorfaggotry. He doesn't have money for a domain. He doesn't have money for actual host or VPS.