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 of a lot of our engineering
articles (at least in English)...

"Wikipedia’s 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

Very accurate description of the state of articles at least in natural and technical sciences in the English Wikipedia.


Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to