I would argue that as it currently is, Wikipedia (at least in sciences) is of comparable quality to Britannica. This fits with personal experience but perhaps more importantly no less a peer-reviewed publication than Nature (which is about as un-wiki as you can get) agrees.
Nature (Dec 2005) Internet Encylopedias Go Head to Head. Vol 438, p. 900.
This is a pretty big "tick" for Wikipedia - I don't know why the press continue to act as though it's a failure when I think it is (with a few issues) succeeding incredibly well.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that as it currently is, Wikipedia (at least in sciences) is of comparable quality to Britannica. This fits with personal experience but perhaps more importantly no less a peer-reviewed publication than Nature (which is about as un-wiki as you can get) agrees.
Nature (Dec 2005) Internet Encylopedias Go Head to Head. Vol 438, p. 900.
This is a pretty big "tick" for Wikipedia - I don't know why the press continue to act as though it's a failure when I think it is (with a few issues) succeeding incredibly well.
Isn't this doing what Kdevelop version 3.0 (http://www.kdevelop.org) is trying to do except in C++?