On 08/04/2011 15:57, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 April 2011 15:17, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Notability" has always been a broken
and widely-misunderstood aspect of
enWP. My impression is that deWP, for example, sets the bar higher, and
has fewer "problems": in a word, deletionism can work well enough.
Comprehensiveness is of course about total content, while notability is
about topics you recognise. "Salience" is the neglected concept, which
is relative to topic.
I am told anecdotally that many native speakers of German who also
speak good English prefer en:wp for its comprehensiveness.
This may be an example of what we think we should be about conflicting
with what readers actually want and expect.
It's not actually terribly
surprising, given that there are probably at
least four times as many native speakers of English as of German. In the
areas I work in I often come across cases where deWP has a better
article on a topic than enWP. These are things you'd expect, anyway. The
real point is that deWP's model seems clearly viable, if a bit
different. We'll see, in the longer term. The gap between "content" and
"featured content" (optimised) still seems huge (FAs cover half a week's
additions at the current rate, by number of topics). We've got a long
way with "good enough" content.
Charles=