Tim C. wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:43:38 +0000, d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >The stuff I read on wiki is neither controversial or hugely popular. It
> >is still contains innaccurate, incomplete and highly subjective opinion.
>
> How does it compare with similar entries in the Encyclopaedia
> Britannica, for example?
I doesn't. EB is one a far higher level The articles are generally
written by eminent scholars in their fields, or at the least writers
with good reputations and a lot of experience. Just doing a quick check
just now, I notice the Stravinsky entry is by two noted musicologists,
one of whom (Taruskin) is probably _the_ main authority on the composer,
who completely blasted away many of the Stravinsky myths in the 90s with
his huge work, Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions. So much for the
'status quo' Mixi refers to.
--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins |