Thanks for posting this René. I&#39;d also be interested to see a translation - but in the absence of this, I&#39;d like to clarify some points.<div><br></div><div>Firstly, I can see you&#39;ve based your research on different language versions - did you look at differences across language versions, as well as projects?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, I&#39;m confused about this summary:<br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Therefore, the results show two sides:On the one hand, Wikipedia has enormous<br>

public and growing academic relevance.Additionally the encyclopaedia<br>
depends on many areas of knowledge withscientific expertise in order to<br>
be qualitatively satisfying. This leadsto a kind of “forced marriage” between<br>
Wikipedia and academia. On the otherhand, Wikibooks and Wikiversity seem<br>
to be less successful compared to theirsister project, which is why there are<br>
only weak connections between academiaand these platforms so far. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Are you saying that there is something within Wikipedia&#39;s scope/methodology/etc that makes it more relevant to a scientific/academic audience - in other words, what is creating this &quot;forced marriage&quot;? Is there something within Wikibooks/Wikiversity&#39;s scope/methodology/etc which is holding it back from being as &quot;successful&quot;? I&#39;m curious about how you define, and gauge, &quot;success&quot; and &quot;relevance&quot; - but I&#39;m really most interested in whether you see a particular aspect of particular projects as the *driver* for academic relevance/success.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Cormac</div><div><br></div></div></div>