Graphs are neat. For your own notes or for heavily interconnected stuff. Like hypertext. The actual graph visualization is often just eye candy. Eye candy that makes nerd-hearts melt, but ultimately a list of related topics (and a single sentence describing that relationship) is much more powerful than seeing a word cloud or a complex graph.
If your topic is of the nature that there is (or should be) a logical starting point, graphs decrease the chance that interested people get presented information in the right order. If there is no logical starting point or there is no right order: good, so be it.
As someone who wants to like graphs: Graphs are great for organizing personal information, meaning they are great if you make the connections. However in practise graph-centric solutions are often solutions in search of a problem. And if you use graphs (anybody using hyperlinks to other hierarchical levels does) they shine most if they don't take the center stage, but are presented on purpose at specific spots.
If your topic is of the nature that there is (or should be) a logical starting point, graphs decrease the chance that interested people get presented information in the right order. If there is no logical starting point or there is no right order: good, so be it.
As someone who wants to like graphs: Graphs are great for organizing personal information, meaning they are great if you make the connections. However in practise graph-centric solutions are often solutions in search of a problem. And if you use graphs (anybody using hyperlinks to other hierarchical levels does) they shine most if they don't take the center stage, but are presented on purpose at specific spots.