Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy shows a higher-quality internet is possible
This article says that the SEP is more comprehensive and more authoritative than Wikipedia. I agree that it's more authoritative, what with it being written by authorities in philosophy. But "more comprehensive"...?<p>Wikipedia is extremely broad. According to the article, the SEP has 1500 entries. Each of those is no doubt better than an individual Wikipedia article (more cohesive, more in-depth, etc), but I bet there's two orders of magnitude more Wiki articles on philosophy (nevermind <i>other</i> topics!). It no doubt has much wider coverage. How's that for "more comprehensive"?<p>I guess I'm just complaining about stretching a word to mean something more specific than it usually means. I think of comprehensive as including both in-depth focus and wide-ranging reach. So when the article counts only one of those aspects, and omits the other from the checklist, it feels like cherry-picking the outcome.