Sometimes I find Wikipedia's "haphazard" articles are actually a benefit, because in practice they often seem to end up covering a subject from multiple angles,

Sometimes I find Wikipedia's "haphazard" articles are actually a benefit, because in practice they often seem to end up covering a subject from multiple angles, with lots of examples etc. My impression is that in many cases this is because there were multiple major authors without a master plan for writing the article, so they ended up sort of putting it all in. For someone (like me!) who's struggling to grasp a subject, seeing a subject described from multiple points of views, targeting varying levels of expertise, can be immensely helpful. A traditional encyclopedia article, on the other hand, is probably more likely to be well-structured and comprehensive, but ... I think can be harder to grasp for someone that's not quite up to the material. It may be kind of ugly, but the "Just throw it all in!" approach does have some real merit...