...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.ru>wrote:

> 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<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.
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>

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

Reply via email to