It has been interesting to notice the recent dismissive references to
Wikipedia in connection with a no-doubt worthy and thought provoking
article on Entropy that John had published there - fleetingly.
I would like to offer what I think is a balanced view of the on line
Wikipedia, and why this would happen. This is undoubtedly the most
stupendous, compendious, crowd-sourced reference work there ever was.
(I say this as the owner of several editions of Enc Brit from the first,
through the fourteenth). The articles on science, technology and
maths are as reliable as it is possible to provide in this medium - but
noticeably: articles concerning politics in general and other
contentious issues are unstable.
And I venture to suggest, that John's Entropy was in this area. It does
not take much study of the Phys-L archives to read John taking swipes at
several well-known texts that deal with this difficult topic. Moreover,
John is blessed with plentiful self-confidence, though over the years,
one can see he sometimes, rarely, makes mistakes on the list.
I suppose one could say that on Entropy, John departs from a consensus
of the physics, chemistry and engineering text book authors'
pronouncements. That is not to say that he is wrong - and it is
very far from saying that his dissenters are exhibiting only
'high-school insight'. (This was so amusing that it reminded me of
Hake's bon-mot years ago, when I criticized his rather formal style on
the list - that if I complained of it - he must be doing something
right! :-) - though to be fair, he later did adopt my suggestion
that he provide an abstract to his posts.)