On 06/03/11 3:46 AM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Yaroslav M.
this would be 10 years of my work. Note that this
is just a narrow topic
which does not overlap with my professional interest (I am a theoretical
physicist specializing in nanoscience). In this field, I am just an amateur
(may be slightly above the average level).
You are interested in this topic; many
users (or most, I am afraid) are not.
It can often be better to write about something where one is NOT a
professional. It takes special skill to write about professional areas
in a way that the general public will understand, even in one's native
from the two-weeks experience:
1. May be the really low hanging fruit, almost on the ground level, has
been picked up, but in the vast majority of articles there is much room for
improvement. Note that I did not add any special things - only the basic
info which you expect to find in the encyclopaedia. I did not aim at GA or
FA. I used may be 10% of the information I had, and what I had I found in
You have an expert knowledge in this topic, namely the knowledge of
Russian language. Most of English Wikipedia editors don't.
There is a plenty of low-hanging fruits in classical music articles
(especially in Russian Wikipedia). With a use of Grove Dictionary of
Music and Musicians, one could add more than 1000 paragraphs of text
into Wikipedia by just retelling its content. Grove has a basic
coverage of topics, and it has 29 volumes in it; I think that
describes the breadth of the topic well. Anyone claiming there is
nothing to write about there must be kidding.
The reason nobody writes them are:
1. Nobody cares;
2. Nobody understands the terms (most of which are fairly easy to learn).
Most unilingual English editors are surprised by the vast quantity of
low hanging fruit. Out of curiosity at one time I looked up the fairly
common Spanish name "Reyes" in the original 70 volume "Enciclopedia
universal ilustrada". I found 30 individuals there with that simple
uncompounded surname. Only two of these appeared in the English
Wikipedia, and only one of the two in the Spanish Wikipedia. Could
something similar be said of the great Soviet Encyclopedia? I have
before looked at a couple short encyclopedic works in Russian, one
relating to hockey and one to movies. Both did address their subject as
it related to the United States as well as their own country. Comparably
sized American publications would leave the reader wondering if there
even was such a thing as a Russian film industry. The dismissive
attitude that Russian works were written by Communists becomes quite
thin in subjects that are inherently apolitical.
I assume that this is because they are less popular.
Articles about US
towns may have the same problems.
In the earliest days the starting articles for
most US small towns
were botted in. Many people complained about this at the time.