[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: [OT] Wikipedia

[François Revol]

> > > The real question, though, is how it compares to traditional 
> > > paper
> > > encyclopedias.  Yes, the quality varies, but overall I'm very 
> > > satisfied.
> > > Furthermore it's very hard to find a topic that is not covered 
> > > nowadays.
> > > Have you ever tried to look up - say - mathematical subjects in 
> > > an
> > > encyclopedia?
> > 
> > The Encyclopaedia Britannica has a solid treatment of quite complex
> > scientific topics.  IIRC, there is an article on calculus spanning 
> > on
> > the order of 100 pages in fairly fine print.  It's not comparable 
> > to a
> > proper book on the matter, but that's not the purpose of an
> > encyclopedia.
> 
> I'll give you an example: I recently needed to know the exact 
> difference
> between perfect and maximal matchings on graphs, because the book I 
> was
> studying from was unclear.  I looked through several math books to no
> avail, but I immediately found it on Wikipedia...
> 

Maybe but it doesn't document the answer to Live, the Universe and 
Everything as accurately as the Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy, 
which itself surpasses the Encyclopedia Galactica.

Oh, well, I guess it has the minimum minimorum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life%2C_the_Universe%2C_and_Everything

Fran?ois.