Things Wikipedia can't do
I’m a huge fan of Wikipedia, but there are some things it’s just not good for, and one of them is providing a well-written and nuanced argument. I was reading a review of Ingrid Rowland’s new book, Giordano Bruno: Philosopher/Heretic in _Salon _when I came across this paragraph:
Their fellow prisoners confirmed that Bruno had cursed God, Christ and the church. Of course, many Italians (then and now) have been known to do this in moments of pique, but the Inquisition also had ample evidence of the philosopher’s contempt for friars, Jesuits, scholastics and other church figures (not to mention his very real objections to key Christian doctrines) in his printed works. He had vented as much bile as the most virulent Internet troll, but he was much more eloquent and far from anonymous. Eventually, he ran out of friends and second chances.
You will never, ever see a paragraph like that in Wikipedia, and it’s a shame. Or maybe not, because it means other ways of doing history are still alive and kicking