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 Components."  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 least in English)... > > "Wikipediaâs coverage of electronics is impressive but inconsistent. > Some > entries are elementary, while others are extremely technical. Some are > shallow, while others are deep. Some are well organized, while others run > off into obscure topics that may have interested one of the contributors > but are of little practical value to most readers. Many topics are > distributed over multiple entries, forcing you to hunt through several > URLs. Overall, Wikipedia tends to be good if you want theory, but > not-so-good if you want hands-on practicality." > > -- phoebe > > 1. http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920026105.do > > > -- > * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers > <at> > gmail.com * > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l