Thanks for posting this René. I'd also be interested to see a translation - but in the absence of this, I'd like to clarify some points. Firstly, I can see you've based your research on different language versions - did you look at differences across language versions, as well as projects?
Also, I'm confused about this summary: Therefore, the results show two sides:On the one hand, Wikipedia has > enormous > public and growing academic relevance.Additionally the encyclopaedia > depends on many areas of knowledge withscientific expertise in order to > be qualitatively satisfying. This leadsto a kind of “forced marriage” > between > Wikipedia and academia. On the otherhand, Wikibooks and Wikiversity seem > to be less successful compared to theirsister project, which is why there > are > only weak connections between academiaand these platforms so far. Are you saying that there is something within Wikipedia's scope/methodology/etc that makes it more relevant to a scientific/academic audience - in other words, what is creating this "forced marriage"? Is there something within Wikibooks/Wikiversity's scope/methodology/etc which is holding it back from being as "successful"? I'm curious about how you define, and gauge, "success" and "relevance" - but I'm really most interested in whether you see a particular aspect of particular projects as the *driver* for academic relevance/success. Thanks, Cormac
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
