I am not happy with this article; it seems to me to be confusing/insufficiently explained (full of dubious assertions) and wrong in various details. I hope and intend to help revise/overhaul it one day, perhaps after I finish my dissertation. It’s possible though that I’m just in a different thoughtspace than the authors, and just don’t understand the thing they are talking about.
Yeah, I probably came across as too harsh—it certainly has its good bits. I think it is well-organized, for one thing. And being a wiki article maybe it can’t afford space to explain things in detail anyway so it had to make some hard tradeoffs.
I am not happy with this article; it seems to me to be confusing/insufficiently explained (full of dubious assertions) and wrong in various details. I hope and intend to help revise/overhaul it one day, perhaps after I finish my dissertation. It’s possible though that I’m just in a different thoughtspace than the authors, and just don’t understand the thing they are talking about.
I like a good chunk of it, but also agree that it definitely could use some updates. I would be excited about you trying to overhaul and update it.
Yeah, I probably came across as too harsh—it certainly has its good bits. I think it is well-organized, for one thing. And being a wiki article maybe it can’t afford space to explain things in detail anyway so it had to make some hard tradeoffs.