Thanks for posting this René. I'd also be interested to see a translation -
but in the absence of this, I'd like to clarify some points.
Firstly, I can see you've based your research on different language versions
- did you look at differences across language versions, as well as projects?
Also, I'm confused about this summary:
Therefore, the results show two sides:On the one hand, Wikipedia has
public and growing academic relevance.Additionally the encyclopaedia
depends on many areas of knowledge withscientific expertise in order to
be qualitatively satisfying. This leadsto a kind of “forced marriage”
Wikipedia and academia. On the otherhand, Wikibooks and Wikiversity seem
to be less successful compared to theirsister project, which is why there
only weak connections between academiaand these platforms so far.
Are you saying that there is something within Wikipedia's
scope/methodology/etc that makes it more relevant to a scientific/academic
audience - in other words, what is creating this "forced marriage"? Is there
something within Wikibooks/Wikiversity's scope/methodology/etc which is
holding it back from being as "successful"? I'm curious about how you
define, and gauge, "success" and "relevance" - but I'm really
interested in whether you see a particular aspect of particular projects as
the *driver* for academic relevance/success.