The problem is that Wikipedia articles will have "random" biases and omissions. When you read a book by one author it's at least likely to be consistent in its bias.
E.g. the latest example I've found of this, which I grant you is relatively obscure compared to more prominent and no doubt well fought over articles, is the one on the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), which had one of the largest Chapter 9 bankruptcies in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Public_Power_Supply_...
All that financial history has been airbrushed out; unless you notice the categories at the bottom, check out the Further reading or the right External Link or sample the article's history you'd have no idea about what was a rather major bit of economic history, rated as one of the three both large and notable Chapter 9 bankruptcies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_9,_Title_11,_United_Sta...
E.g. the latest example I've found of this, which I grant you is relatively obscure compared to more prominent and no doubt well fought over articles, is the one on the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), which had one of the largest Chapter 9 bankruptcies in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Public_Power_Supply_...
All that financial history has been airbrushed out; unless you notice the categories at the bottom, check out the Further reading or the right External Link or sample the article's history you'd have no idea about what was a rather major bit of economic history, rated as one of the three both large and notable Chapter 9 bankruptcies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_9,_Title_11,_United_Sta...