[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

[Phil Nash]

geni wrote:
>> 2009/3/25 Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com>:
>>> Getting back to the original post.
>>>
>>> How's Wikipedia's coverage of history, compared to the average
>>> British school textbook?
>>>
>>> -Durova
>>
>> Probably more comprehensive in that no one has yet worked out how to
>> make a text book 30 foot thick. On the other hand in say the case of
>> WW1 wikipedia tends to focus on the battles, the tactics, the weapons
>> and to an extent the politics rather than what life was like for the
>> average solider.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Life_in_the_trenches
>>
>> probably comes closest.
>>
>> Compare that with the length of:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Chamond_(tank)

I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort 
of value-judgement. The former section could benefit from better sourcing, 
whereas the latter equipment is probably better documented. It comes down to 
interests of editors, since nobody is forced to edit topics they aren't 
interested in (although, if paid, I will happily do that). A comparison may 
be drawn between the frankly appallingly-written articles about some recent 
musical groups, as against conscientious and detailed articles about bands 
such as [[The Beatles]], [[The Who]] and [[Led Zeppelin]]. This doesn't 
immunise those articles against vandalism, fancruft and other nonsense, but 
at least it means there is a cadre of commited editors who will strive to 
maintain encyclopedic standards.