shouldiuse.io

Report

Should I Use Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

iep.utm.edu·Analyzed 3 hours ago··Based on 9 sources

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

Worth it

Worth it

Free and credible: use it for peer-reviewed philosophy background at the undergrad level.

Free, peer-reviewed philosophy encyclopedia — ideal undergrad background; Stanford's is deeper for research. No cost, no catch.

Confidence: Medium

Free

Price

No funding; all-volunteer operation

8.2M

Annual readers

Unique viewers per 12 months

~900

Article count

Peer-reviewed, blind-refereed entries

1995

Founded

Open access since launch

Value for money5

Free peer-reviewed scholarship — unbeatable price.

Ease of use4

Free, browsable, pitched at undergraduates.

Feature depth3

~900 articles vs Stanford's 1,478.

Support quality2

Volunteer-run, no funding, no support channel.

Pros

  • Completely free, open access since 1995.⁸
  • Peer-reviewed, blind-refereed articles by professional philosophers.²
  • Most-visited professionally written philosophy encyclopedia: 8.2M annual viewers.²
  • Contributors from 35 countries.²
  • Academic review found some entries excellent.¹

Cons

  • Smaller coverage than Stanford's encyclopedia (1,478 entries).⁵
  • Contribution generally by invitation — slower topic expansion.²
  • Aimed at undergrad/early-grad level, not specialists.⁶
  • No funding — entirely volunteer-run, no support channel.
  • English-language articles only.⁶

Gotchas

  • medium~900 articles with invitation-only contributions — your specific topic or philosopher may be missing.²
  • lowNo security page or funding disclosed; volunteer-run, so no uptime or support guarantees.⁴
  • lowDepth targets undergrads; cross-check Stanford's encyclopedia for graduate-level work.⁶

Best for

  • Undergrad philosophy students
  • Quick scholarly background reading
  • Writers needing citable overviews
  • Anyone avoiding paywalls

Not for

  • Advanced researchers — Stanford's encyclopedia is deeper and larger
  • Non-English readers — content is English-only
  • Anyone needing support, SLAs, or uptime guarantees — volunteer-run
  • Niche topic hunters — invitation-only publishing means coverage gaps

Companies that use it

  • University of Wisconsin-Madison (library database)⁶
  • Cal State Fullerton (library guide)⁹
  • University of Chicago Library
  • University of Notre Dame Australia (library guide)
  • Harvard CHDS (repository)⁸

Companies that could

  • Stanford University⁵Uses Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy instead

Pricing

All content

$0

  • ~900 peer-reviewed articles
  • Open access, no account needed
  • No disclosed revenue or funding

Security

No known public vulnerabilities found in the sources reviewed.

What users say

Librarians and academics treat IEP as a credible, free peer-reviewed companion to the Stanford Encyclopedia, pitched at undergrad level.

“Some entries are excellent.”
— Swarthmore academic review (H. Oberdiek, 1999)
“brief, English-language articles aimed chiefly at an undergraduate or early graduate student audience”
— University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries
“Are there only 2 academic online encyclopedias of ...”
— Philosophy StackExchange

Alternatives

Compare Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy with each alternative.

Wikipedia

Fast casual lookups; lower rigor, no peer review.

Full analysis

Based on 14 public sources: university library guides, Wikipedia, a 1999 academic review, and community discussion.

Sources

  1. Review of 'The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy' (Swarthmore)works.swarthmore.edu
    review
  2. Wikipedia — Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophyen.wikipedia.org
    review
  3. IEP official siteiep.utm.edu
    official
  4. IEP security page checkiep.utm.edu
    security
  5. Stanford News on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophynews.stanford.edu
    news
  6. UW-Madison Libraries database entrysearch.library.wisc.edu
    review
  7. Philosophy StackExchange discussionphilosophy.stackexchange.com
    review
  8. Harvard CHDS repository entryrepository.chds.hsph.harvard.edu
    official
  9. Cal State Fullerton Philosophy LibGuidelibraryguides.fullerton.edu
    review

Rate this review

Anonymous. You can change your vote.

Loading votes…

Ask a follow-up

Ask if a use case fits. Answers stay inside this report and its sources.

    Comments

    One queue. No replies. Give a display name first. Limit: 7 comments per day.

    Save a name to write a comment.

    No comments yet.