Agree or disagree with his views, Animal Liberation is an important philosophical work due to its impact on contemporary culture.
Bonus points for also having no Derrida, Althusser, Fichte, Bergson or Simmel. (Apart from others, like Schleiermacher, Schlegel etc.)
It depends, really. As a Democritus fanboy I always take "offense" when hearing similar remarks, and I usually try (and fail) to make my point by offering a witty remark which might sound like Hobbes or Epicurus might have said it.
On a more serious note, this list is really bogus when it comes to "ancient Philosophy" because it ignores all the pre-Socratics. Ok, maybe some Sophists were not the most trust-worthy bunch of them all, but you cannot really omit Heraclitus or Democritus himself.
Its articles strike the perfect balance between intellectual rigour and general accessibility. It combines the traditional encyclopedic format with the authorship of academic experts. And if that wasn't enticing enough, the articles are published for free and list the author's contact information at the bottom.
While we're at it, yes it needs a continental section, among many other improvements. This is a problem with tree taxonomy in fields of ideas. Anyone really feel like they really care about fixing this? Is that why someone posted it here?
Regardless of the details, there are certainly more than one notable work inside of feminism.
I would think that such works as "A Cyborg Manifesto" by Donna Haraway, "Anarchism" by Emma Goldman, or "Gyn/Ecology" by Mary Daly are at least as worthy of being listed here as "The Book of Five Rings" or Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy".
I said "average article" precisely because I didn't want people to just cherry pick a weak entry here and there. Any list of the top 100 whatever will be open to dispute. Saying "I think X was unfairly excluded because it's clearly more important than entry 97" is not good evidence of bias.
"A defense of abortion" is moral philosophy. If you classify it as feminism, the term is overly broad (and, of course, only weakens the case for bias).
> "Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit," Halfaker said.