My original point was that I believe Wikipedia has a strong bias towards the best content available online and that they're weaker when potential content is onl

My original point was that I believe Wikipedia has a strong bias towards the best content available online and that they're weaker when potential content is only available in paper form. Which I suppose speaks to the ongoing OCR / paper -> digital backend effort to mass digitize legacy books and present them in a accessible manner. I'll admit I'm basing this opinion only on my usage of Wikipedia and noting some glaring gaps or lack of depth in niche historical articles.