wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 02.03.05 20:41:54:
Marco Krohn wrote:
wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org wrote:
I like to point out to people that the *German* version won in a blind test against two commercial encyclopedias, and we'd like to bring the English one up to the same standard. This points out that though en: is a remarkable achievement, at least one other language version has in fact tested even better!
IMHO the English Wikipedia was and continues to be better than the German one, both in terms of quality and quantity. This of course does not hold for topics that are related to Germany.
Is it relevant what wikipedia is better ?
I did not wrote anything about the relevance of being better or not. You wrote that you want to bring the English one to the same standard and I just pointed out that this is IMHO not necessary, since the English one already is superior. Also, as Mav correctly remarked, the fact that the German Wikipedia has been tested does not tell us anything about the quality of the English version.
Also I doubt that the test was a blind test, at least the two tests I am aware of were to my knowledge not blind tests, but I can be wrong about this. Which test do you refer to?
I think the different wikipedias can not be compared because few articles are translated and most articles are rewritten.
I have read dozens of articles in both versions and if the topic is not in particular related to Germany (ICE) the English version in most cases was better, which does not imply that the German version is bad. This already is a comparison - of course a limited one, because I am just one person ;-)
With a believe that the en:wikipedia is better, you will not look into the other projects and find out what the strength is of the other projects.
I like orange juice more than apple juice, nevertheless I drink apple juice from time to time :-)
One nice translation excercise I learned about the other day were Italian students translating German wikipedia articles into Italian. The texts were chosen by the teacher, the students translate the article, the student corrects and does the proof reading and the translated article is posted in the Italian wikipedia. When the students become more able with the German language, they will translate into German. :)
This is a great idea! The copyright is a little bit of a problem, but this should be no big deal as the students probably do not care about this too much.
best regards, Marco
______________________________________________________________ Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS! Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
Marco Krohn wrote:
wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 02.03.05 20:41:54:
No idea who this is, but it's not me.
Marco Krohn wrote:
wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org wrote:
This was me.
I like to point out to people that the *German* version won in a blind test against two commercial encyclopedias, and we'd like to bring the English one up to the same standard. This points out that though en: is a remarkable achievement, at least one other language version has in fact tested even better!
Also I doubt that the test was a blind test, at least the two tests I am aware of were to my knowledge not blind tests, but I can be wrong about this. Which test do you refer to?
I was originally referring to the c't test (I think it was). I thought it was a blind test: here are three articles, which is best?
- d.
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 23:57, David Gerard wrote:
Marco Krohn wrote:
Also I doubt that the test was a blind test, at least the two tests I am aware of were to my knowledge not blind tests, but I can be wrong about this. Which test do you refer to?
I was originally referring to the c't test (I think it was). I thought it was a blind test: here are three articles, which is best?
I just looked it up again (c't 21/04) and there is nothing about a blind test. It would not be particular hard to make it a blind test, but at least they do not mention it explicitly.
BTW the average results (scale from 0 - 5, 5 being "excellent") were:
Wikipedia - 3.6 Brockhaus - 3.3 MS EncartaPro - 3.1
best regards, Marco
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org