daniwo59(a)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