The same subject does not remain the same subject once it passes through 261 languages.
After the Encyclopedia compares Wikipedia articles about the same topics across language editions. It asks whether the platform still behaves like one encyclopedia when its facts, lengths, emphases, dates, omissions and article structures are placed next to each other.
The work is not built on the claim that Wikipedia is false. The claim is sharper and more uncomfortable: Wikipedia is useful, but it is not internally stable across languages in ways that matter.
A fixed corpus of subjects is measured across language editions. QID anchors, local labels and article evidence are used to separate concept presence from interpretation. First presence, then story.
No English fallback for public claims. A concept has to appear through local language evidence before it can become part of the public ledger.
One language edition can behave like a public health guide, while another becomes a taxonomic stub.
The same virus produces different reader realities: symptoms, prevention, risk and taxonomy do not travel evenly across languages.
Some discrepancies are not questions of style. They are physical category errors, travelling numbers and mismatched scientific quantities.
This is where the project becomes measurable: not culture as decoration, but factual instability as evidence.
The audit separates raw evidence from public evidence. Bibliographies, tags and passing mentions are not treated as article claims.
A story is only classified after local concept presence has been mapped.
