[WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition: unevenness of coverage

[Daniel P.B.Smith]

> From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
> Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
>
>> A weak point of Wikipedia is that people write about what they are
>> interested in, so given several topics of apparently comparable
>> importance, the length, depth, and quality of the articles may differ
>> widely.
>
> This is true. This is called "Systematic bias":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: 
> Replies_to_common_objections#Systematic_bias
>
>> This largely escapes notice in the web edition, but will become
>> much more apparent in a print edition.
>
> Is that really so bad, though?

Not on the Web, no.

> I'm sure most people will understand. :)

Yeah, right. I'm sure they'll understand why Phillips Exeter has an  
article and Choate (now Choate Rosemary Hall) doesn't.

Why Bronx High School of Science has an article and La Guardia High  
School of Music and Art (of _Fame_ fame) does not.

Why Cal Tech gets five paragraphs, Princeton gets seven, Harvard gets  
fourteen, and MIT gets thirty-six. (This means the section on MIT's  
_architecture_ is longer than the _entire article on Princeton._)

Why Radiology has nine paragraphs and Cytology gets one sentence.

Why Marianne Moore gets eight paragraphs and Vachel Lindsay gets  
"Vachel Lindsay (1879 - December 5, 1931) was an American poet born in  
Springfield, Illinois."

It doesn't bother me at all on the Web, but I think the slogan  
"Wikipedia is not paper" may turn out to have an uncomfortable amount  
of truth in it.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world.std.com alternate:  
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/