We're getting there! There are currently 793 philosophy articles [1] better than C-class in Wikipedia.
By quality:
* Featured articles: 41 [2]
* Featured lists: 4 [3]
* Good articles: 113 [4]
* B-class articles: 635 [5]
1. Summary table of philosophy articles by quality and importance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophy_articles_b...
2. https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&...
3. https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&...
4. https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&...
5. https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&...
But I use them both, for different things. The general overview articles are much better at SEP than Wikipedia. But Wikipedia has a lot more narrow articles, on subjects that SEP doesn't cover at all, or mentions only in passing in one paragraph of an article. For example, a huge number of short-to-medium-length biographies of historically important philosophers (SEP instead has a small number of quite lengthy biographies).
I do wish something like SEP existed in more other fields. I don't know of anything like it for computer science, for example.
My impression is that in many cases this is because there were multiple major authors without a master plan for writing the article, so they ended up sort of putting it all in.
For someone (like me!) who's struggling to grasp a subject, seeing a subject described from multiple points of views, targeting varying levels of expertise, can be immensely helpful.
A traditional encyclopedia article, on the other hand, is probably more likely to be well-structured and comprehensive, but ... I think can be harder to grasp for someone that's not quite up to the material.
It may be kind of ugly, but the "Just throw it all in!" approach does have some real merit...