I know you are all assuming while reading this thread that the
situation is much better in humanities subjects such as biographies of
17th-century artists, but strangely, you could say that it's about the
same, because the emphasis (through the centuries) there is often
based on opinions formed
I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
Encyclopedia of Electronic Components. [1] I'm not sure that I've ever
seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to me
this sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of our engineering
articles (at
I think that is a pretty good analysis of the entire project. It is
directly related to lack of editorial control and the impossibility of
being able to assign writers to problem areas.
Fred
I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
Encyclopedia of Electronic
I usually say Wikipedia consist of some hundred different encyclopedias
on different topics.
And some of these are excellent and have full covering, like popes,
birds, where wp is better then all other encyclopedia in all aspects
Other subject area are more uneven both in covering and in
On 28.05.2013 19:40, phoebe ayers wrote:
I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
Encyclopedia of Electronic Components. [1] I'm not sure that I've
ever
seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to
me
this sounds like a pretty good description
...and engineering (theory ok to good, practical often very weak).
And varies across fields radically...
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ruwrote:
On 28.05.2013 19:40, phoebe ayers wrote:
I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
