Quality on different language version - Wikimedia-l

9 Jun 2014

I have several times asked for a professional qualty study of our 
different laguage versions, but not seen it exist or being done.

To ?provoke? I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily 
looking into the different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being 
created on sv.wp) (I list them in order how often I use them to 
calibrate the svwp articles).

enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles on 
marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even if 
rather bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?)

eswp - a very  good version, which in the general discussion are not 
getting appropriate credit

dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the 
elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious 
subjects (that after time passes gets very relevant)?
frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage and 
the different articles (even in same subject area)
nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality on 
articles but limited "world" coverage in areas like biographies
itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered,

nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext 
sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one in 
other languages

ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume and 
accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles are 
uneven. I now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which I use 
very seldom as the different alphabet makes it hard to understand the 
article content

(arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated)

(I also use some smaller ones like sqwp and mgwp (hungarian), in these 
versions I have seen serious quality problems not to be found in any of 
the above ones, I am not sure they even have basic patrolling in place)

Anders