Sj wrote:
Yes; I like Erik's idea of doing this once a
sizeable number of
articles (1000?)
have passed through this system in at least one language. At the
same time, we should commission a similar content comparison for en:...
What I'd *really* like is details on the quality review de: apparently
went through to get de: to such a state, and whether we can just do that
for en: as well. On the principle that we undeniably have lots of good
stuff, but hitting 'Random page' twenty times shows up our defects
glaringly.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of the English articles
that correspond to the ones, substituting only for the ones where the
subject would be culturally meaningless for an English speaking
audience. Encyclopedia Britannica could also replace Brockhaus. This
would ensure that our own comparisons were based on a somewhat
objective article selection..
"Commissioning" such a study would make it difficult to defend that
the study was impartial. A truly independent study must come from an
impartial outside source that has full control over its article
selection. It would be interesting to see what a group like "Consumer
Reports" would do with this.
There is one futher observation from Lothar's list. He noted that the
study pointed out that we did not have an article for the medical term
"Fontanelle". This deficiency was quickly remedied, and I am sure
that the other deficiencies will also be reviewed. It would be
interesting to review the same articles after 60 days. That would
measure the capacity of each encyclopedia to quickly repair its
shortcomings when thay have been pointed out.
Ec
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org