David Gerard wrote:
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