encyclopaedic

The question is, given these encyclopaedic statements about corporate responsibility, for what exactly do they count for?

The math is far more dauting to have an encyclopaedic understanding of the field than it was in, say 1930.

So don't be surprised if someone has an encyclopaedic knowledge about seemingly (to you, at least) useless facts.

Khan Academy is doing much better for this, but it isn't really an encyclopaedic collection of knowledge.

Just don't take everything you read to be encyclopaedic facts and don't be surprised with 'absurdities' of these sort.

I remember having an encyclopaedic knowledge of the prices of Lego sets (and Transformers) during the 80's.

What leapt out at me was the quote from Sequoia His wikipedic knowledge, quick wit, Hang on - Encyclopaedic knowledge yes but Wikipedic?

We weren’t testing for encyclopaedic knowledge - we were testing to see if the candidate could solve a problem.

While it's not ok to hide unflattering info, it's also not ok to bloat a short encyclopaedic article with court case details with the intention of highlighting how bad a guy the subject is.

This is a very detailed effort, with encyclopaedic ambitions across different languages.

This is an epic encyclopaedic reference of video game history, from the point of view of the game developers themselves, and the industry heads.

In other words: I expect the starts of encyclopaedic information about the subject.

My point is that “encyclopaedic information” is low-quality by necessity: there is no shortcut to truly expert information on a topic.

I consider TV Tropes to be the spiritual successor of wikipedia, and what wikipedia should have been, and would encourage people to contribute there instead - even for more "encyclopaedic" topics, its "Useful Notes" articles are often more informative than their wikipedia equivalents.