It's fair for SEP to be described as comprehensive because it's an encyclopedia of philosophy... which leads me on to my main point. What's not fair is compari

It's fair for SEP to be described as comprehensive because it's an encyclopedia of philosophy... which leads me on to my main point. What's not fair is comparing SEP to Wikipedia, which is a different thing. SEP and Wikipedia have entirely different problems to optimise for. SEP can optimise for article authoritivity & comprehensivity because the rate at which new articles are added is much, much, much, lower than Wikipedia's. SEP don't have an article for new movie releases, books, actors, current affairs. I have to confess I think the comparison between the two is somewhat disengenuous. It's like comparing databases that make different CAP theorem trade-offs (and are designed for different scales) in a situation that's favourable to one of them, and reporting it as a fair and objective comparison... I hesitate to give an example because it may start a flamewar, but [dons flame-retardant underpants] it's like saying that SQLite is objectively better than CouchDB because SQLite doesn't have consistency issues. SEP's model would fall flat on its face if were expected to do Wikipedia's job.