Wikipedia

Has anybody else noticed that the computer science pages on wikipedia are fan-fucking-tastic? I was reading the page on type systems, and about halfway through I realized that the article was far too technical to be so readable, and yet it was.

Is there a place I can thank the magnificent bastards who wrote this stuff?

>>1
Send them monies.

>>1
You're welcome :)

They are often surprisingly good. The identical code examples in multiple languages are typically Wikipediaic, though.

>>1, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  You can help improve any article, and that is thanks enough.

FV is a contributor to wikipedia. How does that make you feel.

>>6
It feels good knowing that the twat is having all his edits reverted by some faggot with a god complex.

wikipedos ITT

>>1
I've had entirely the opposite experience.  I try to learn about something and there's a big article with diagrams but it doesn't make any sense because they just leave out a bunch of critical shit.  So I end up having to pirate a real book that covers it.

The math articles are even worse, because everything is described in terms of more advanced things it could be generalized into, instead of the behavior/uses of the thing itself.

>>9
Less advanced. More abstract.

>>9
WP is an encyclopedia. It is a tertiary source of information. It is intended as nothing more than a starting point for your research.

>>9
The math articles are even worse, because everything is described in terms of more advanced things it could be generalized into, instead of the behavior/uses of the thing itself.
Logical fallacy.

>>12
FELLATE MY ANUS

>>9
IAWTC