...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 george.herb...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l