>>13474481Since you like definitions some much, check the definition of the word "comprehensive". I meant your suggested websites don't cover the same wide variety of topics wikipedia does.
Now consider the following:
>wants to check the properties of Math Object AWhat do you think it's faster?
>download book, check table of contents to see in which chapter what you're looking for is, go through chapter to find itor
>search "Math Object A" on wikipedia?
As for your strawman, I already told you I use books for learning and studying. I'm just explaining to you why wikipedia is useful for quick references. You're not even trying to deny how useful wikipedia is, you're just suggesting flawed alternatives and attacking me personally because I don't believe in your conspiracy.
You seem awfully triggered by the thought of people using wikipedia. I wonder whether you're another schizo who sees "enemies" everywhere or another /pol/ spammer. In fact, I wonder what's the difference.
