On 30/11/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My take is that you can define the quality of Wikipedia to be a function of both the depth of coverage (using that as shorthand for the whole specific/accurate/verifiable/sourced class of concepts) and the breadth of coverage (i.e. not missing information).
Yes. The *breadth* of en:wp's coverage is actually a reason I've heard from many who speak another language natively for preferring en:wp as a reference - there's more likely to be something, anything, on a given subject here than anywhere else, and a better something than you'd get from a Google search.
Our breadth is a strength, not a weakness. We don't have to have a 30,000-byte article on something to be a useful source on it.
- d.