daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Yes, we are way ahead of Britannica in many areas, but, to be realistic, just as we have many excellent articles that they simply don't have, they also have many articles that we don't. Of course, we are in a better situation, because we can easily fill in the gaps.
I therefore encourage people to take a look at [[Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics]]. Make redirects if we have the articles, and see what articles they have that you can fill in. Start with a sub, or even a substub. It is bound to grow. Let's make sure we have everything they have and more.
Danny
Can I join Danny in saying what a good idea it is to browse [[Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics]].
I was a bit wary of the Countering Systematic Bias project - thinking that it was too much being used as a vehicle to take a pop at proud Americans. However this list of topics really makes plain that WP is systematically weaker in some areas.
Pete