<story><title>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy shows a higher-quality internet is possible</title><url>http://qz.com/480741/this-free-online-encyclopedia-has-achieved-what-wikipedia-can-only-dream-of/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Strilanc</author><text>This article says that the SEP is more comprehensive and more authoritative than Wikipedia. I agree that it&amp;#x27;s more authoritative, what with it being written by authorities in philosophy. But &amp;quot;more comprehensive&amp;quot;...?&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#x27;s two orders of magnitude more Wiki articles on philosophy (nevermind &lt;i&gt;other&lt;/i&gt; topics!). It no doubt has much wider coverage. How&amp;#x27;s that for &amp;quot;more comprehensive&amp;quot;?&lt;p&gt;I guess I&amp;#x27;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.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>TuringTest</author><text>Comprehensive within the field of philosophy? Yeah, I think that can be achieved. Wikipedia articles on core philosophical articles are often not much more than stubs - certainly the SEP examples seem more coherent and well structured. I don&amp;#x27;t think there will be more than 1500 articles better than C-class in Wikipedia&amp;#x27;s Philosophy category.</text></comment>
<story><title>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy shows a higher-quality internet is possible</title><url>http://qz.com/480741/this-free-online-encyclopedia-has-achieved-what-wikipedia-can-only-dream-of/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Strilanc</author><text>This article says that the SEP is more comprehensive and more authoritative than Wikipedia. I agree that it&amp;#x27;s more authoritative, what with it being written by authorities in philosophy. But &amp;quot;more comprehensive&amp;quot;...?&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#x27;s two orders of magnitude more Wiki articles on philosophy (nevermind &lt;i&gt;other&lt;/i&gt; topics!). It no doubt has much wider coverage. How&amp;#x27;s that for &amp;quot;more comprehensive&amp;quot;?&lt;p&gt;I guess I&amp;#x27;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.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>njharman</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think your second meaning of the word is wide spread. Comprehensive is not expansive or all-encompassing. A single article can be comprehensive if it self-contained and complete.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something&amp;quot;</text></comment>