I suppose so, and apologize for simply making the remove instead of suggesting it first. Wikipedia is nowhere near as complete as Britannica, and omissions in the second don't serve to prove that it could be, so the above doesn't help with the goal stated. And I think it is a double standard to point out the Britannica is incomplete, and then turn around and say it doesn't matter that Wikipedia is or isn't. But hypocritical was definitely poor word choice.
:But who says that it doesn't matter that Wikipedia is incomplete? I think everybody wants it to be more complete, and also everybody acknowledges that EB is vastly more accurate and complete than Wikipedia. So ultimately, this page is just propaganda, showing the tiny little specks where Wikipedia is better than EB and ignoring the vast ocean of inadequacies. I'll make that clearer in the first paragraph. --AxelBoldt
|
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)