"if you're after scientific or technical information, Wikipedia is every bit as good as EB."
This has not been my experience. Wikipedia is incredibly uneven and suffers from outrageous misinformation on technical subjects. A good example would be the Plato pages, which for about six years were completely written around a theory that Plato's intention in the dialogues was to show how stupid Socrates is. Things like EB often suffer from sparse or idiosyncratic information on fringe subjects, but Plato is not a fringe subject.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/11 12:05 (UTC)This has not been my experience. Wikipedia is incredibly uneven and suffers from outrageous misinformation on technical subjects. A good example would be the Plato pages, which for about six years were completely written around a theory that Plato's intention in the dialogues was to show how stupid Socrates is. Things like EB often suffer from sparse or idiosyncratic information on fringe subjects, but Plato is not a fringe subject.