In Polish edition of Newsweek from 31.12.06 there is a supplement called
"Future of information". Although it is not pointed clearly this supplement is obviously sponsored by Larousse Poland and in fact it is a kind of "smart" advertisement of Polish edition of "Popular Larousse Encyclopedia". Among other articles describing advantages of Larousse over Polish Scientific Publishers (PWN, http://en.pwn.pl/) encyclopedias and other potential "paper" competitors of Larousse in Poland, there is also large article comparing Larousse's encyclopedia with Polish Wikipedia. The comparison is based on three articles "Anatomia" (anatomy), "Islam" and "Ogniwo słoneczne" (solar cell). One of these articles is marked "stub" in Polish Wikipedia, the second one is disambig, the third one is normal, long article. What is interesting, there is no claims that there are factual mistakes in Wikipedia, however the comparison points out that the consistency of text, amount and quality of pictures and ease of reading is much better in Larousse than in Wikipedia. As I personally can agree with better consistency of text and ease of reading, the claims that amount and quality of pictures is better is based only on the pictures one can see in articles, completely ignoring what can be found in linked galleries in Commons and after clicking on bigger versions of pictures. Of course the selection of articles for comparison was also not random but made by choice of guys from Larousse. Other sets of articles could probably give completely different results. Anyway, I think the fact that this sponsored supplement put much more place to compare their encyclopedia with Wikipedia (three pages long article) and not to the other formally more serious competitors like PWN encyclopedia and Polish edition of Brittanica is interesting by itself. It shows that Larousse is more afraid of us than of PWN or Brittanica... or we were simply easer target of not very fair negative comparison. -- Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Polimerek http://www.poli.toya.net.pl/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/pl/TomaszGanicz.html _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
On 23/12/06, Tomek Polimerek Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What is interesting, there is no claims that there > are factual mistakes in Wikipedia, however the comparison points out > that the consistency of text, amount and quality of pictures and ease of > reading is much better in Larousse than in Wikipedia. Well, these faults are very fixable and can easily be changed. Unlike claims of factual accuracy, they do not come down to the fundamental model in which we are working. Still, with Commons available, I'm surprised "quality of pictures" was a criticism. Wikimedia seems to have a wide range of high-quality pictures at its disposal. Could you explain what you mean by "consistency of text"? Consistency in writing style? -- Oldak Quill ([hidden email]) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |