Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Ask HN: Areas for which Wikipedia is NOT the most comprehensive online resource?
5 points by p-e-w on Sept 21, 2022 | hide | past | favorite | 3 comments
It certainly is for mathematics and computer science (apart from some specialized areas like HoTT and complexity theory), and I've been told the same is true for physics, chemistry, and astronomy, though I'm not an expert in those fields so I have to take their word for it. It also appears to be true for biographies, conflicts, cities, and many, many other topics.

So for which areas of knowledge is Wikipedia NOT the most comprehensive resource available online?



Philosophy (most sorts, although philosophy is such a broad field that there will be some disagreement about what it includes). For philosophy, we mostly use the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu . Props to Ed Zalta and all the authors who've made this the case!


I've always found that SEP feels less like an encyclopedia and more like a collection of essays. For example, the article on "Plato" is written in a style that would not be accepted on Wikipedia. The author switches freely between their own viewpoint and Plato's, without clearly indicating which is which.

Also, while SEP articles usually feature comprehensive bibliographies, there are few references in the article that link individual statements to sources. This again would not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

I don't doubt that SEP contains plenty of material that is missing from Wikipedia, but in terms of encyclopedic standards, it seems to me that Wikipedia is far superior.


Vehicle mechanics. Home construction. Literally anything involving making a thing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: