Andrew Gray wrote:
On 28/06/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I can see the EB list being used that way, especially by newbies. The list just shows what we don't have; it does not suggest that the potential contributor seek out the Britannica article. If instead it inspires someone to research an otherwise obscure historical personage, then we all benefit.
The "obscure historical personage" is one of the key things for us; I think we're past the stage that we run the risk of failing to include a field of academic interest through not knowing about it (Having a bad article through no expert knowledge is another matter). But a lot of those personages will be in the 1911 Encyclopedia, or the various other old encyclopedias we have lists for - I just went to look at the project page, and was happily surprised to see that Britannica is just one of a set of similar projects being undertaken as comparisons.
Hmm. The original Oxford /Dictionary of National Biography/ was originally printed in 1909. It'd be an excellent source for things like this; I wonder if an index is available? I note that the Australian and Canadian equivalents have had lists set up.
Yes there is, and there is a statistical analysis in reprint volume 22. Each reprint volume (which consolidated 3 original volumes each) has its own index. What's more the original body was in alphabetical order anyway.
Ec