{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029453015427769985, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01332398316970547, 'mean_word_length': 5.5159817351598175, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative analysis of Respipedia, Nupedia and Wikipedia. Is it possible for Respipedia to avoid Nupedia's fate?

Introduction: Respipedia is a peer-reviewed medical wiki on respiratory medicine now open to the public having been on line from July 2015 with 66 articles in different stage of development, 129 contributors and average 3,3 edition monthly for lasy six months (Feb 2018). Aims and objectives: To compare two web based educational projects one succesful and one unsuccesful with Respipedia for determining its future and to propose possible improvements. Methods: Review of literature was preformed. Two widely analised projects were chosen one succesful (Wikipedia) and one unsuccesful (Nupedia). Both were compared to Respipedia. Results: Following problems were identified: (1) lack of clear target audience (common public, medical professionals, respiratory specialists) (2) low number of contributing authors (3) lack of clear authorship status (4) lack of clear revison status Conclusion: Opening for medical professionals willing to edit as a volunteers, preserving position of reviewers for ERS members seems to be essential. Introducing audit trail feature and visible reviewed status will allow to clear authorship and quality status of every article version. Publishing best articles considered as a "state of art" in indexed medical journal with impact factor should provide the pressure for quality.