It actually doesn't matter how good the information itself is, because even good information on Wikipedia cannot be trusted and therefore is not helpful. Anyway, it's well known that science coverage is better than humanities. The problem with situation like this is that you have people who seen to operate from a scientific mindset editing articles that have to do with literature, theology, culture, and philosophy. Most wikipedia admins mis-apply scientific concepts and criteria and methods to articles that are not subject to those methods. For instance, you constantly see idiotic admins asking for "reliable" "empirical" sources for a claim about literature, or asking for "reliable" "unbiased" citations for some postmodern topic. Hahaha. Anyway for philosophy at least we have the stanford encyclopedia. Right now the best compendium of information for information about the contents of books is on Amazon. Too bad that a greedy corporation gets to own and capitalize on all that free information. Wikipedia can't handle that stuff because any books that aren't the taste of these Richard Dawkinite Asperberger I-Fucking-Love-Science types get deleted. Like the Law of One article. Some pointy headed basement nerd decides he doesn't like those books so they should be deleted. Nevermind that they meet all the wikipedia requirements... what counts is that the admin thinks the books are "nonsense" and that the 30+ notable and reliable sources are "biased". And you can't get justice because there are way more dumb admins than good ones, and what kind of person would volunteer for such a terrible job anyway? The only people who become admins are power tripping losers with small man syndrome, because those are the only kind of people who benefit from the job. They don't follow the rules as laid out in wikipedia guidelines and there is no court or system to keep them accountable. The admin rot goes all the way to the top, and admins will never justify their rulings according to policy. It's like having a legal system where judges are not required to explain a ruling in legal terms. They just hand out the ruling without explaining how the ruling follows from law, and then they cry about it when people point out that there is no logical way to get from the written laws to the stupid ruling they made. They cry harassment. They delete your criticisms from their page. They delete the evidence you present. You claim this asshole is competent; why did he selectively delete the evidence I presented on his talk page? He deleted the EVIDENCE. That's not incompetence, that's malicious, that's psychopathic. Anyway now that this last article of mine is finally dead I can move on. I'd have to be an idiot to put any more of my work at the mercy of capricious, vindictive, arbitrary petty tyrants like that guy.