Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org> writes: Well, the Chief Justice does have an article, but none of the rest do. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Sung-tae Nonetheless, point taken. Somewhat surprising to me is that it's even true in Western Europe: after a few years of living in Scandinavia, I've learned to check the Danish/Norwegian/Swedish Wikipedias for local information before the English one, because even though they are much smaller overall, their coverage of things like Scandinavian politics, history, or even buildings and city squares, is much better. The Greek Wikipedia also has much better coverage of post-classical Greece than the English one does, despite being one of the smaller Wikipedias. A problem with solving that is that in many cases the undercoverage is not only with us, but with the entire Anglophone reference literature, including academia and other encyclopedias. For example I'm interested in contemporary Greek literature, and very little of it is written up adequately in English (only a handful of major names). So en.wikipedia articles on the subject would need to be written by bilingual Greek/English speakers, possibly via translation from el.wikipedia. I think this type of undercoverage, where there are no good sources in the language of the Wikipedia in question, is much harder to solve via tackling systemic bias, because the bias goes beyond Wikipedia. That brings up a question: are there any studies attempting to tease apart those two sources of coverage bias? To what extent does the English Wikipedia (or the French, or German, or Japanese) bias its coverage *more* or *less* than the availability of sources in that language would otherwise predict? Does each one roughly reflect general source availability in that language, or do they superimpose additional biases on top of source availability? And does this differ between the languages? -Mark -- Mark J. Nelson IT University of Copenhagen http://www.kmjn.org