On 28/06/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Whether the Britannica list is worthless for our purposes is debatable. When I started I would look at our software generated most wanted list to see if anything there interested me, and I started a number of articles that way.
I've done this a couple of times, as well. Or digging up odd lists and filling redlinks; I wrote an article on Lorenzo de Medici Sweat simply becuase he had such a lovely name.
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.