Asaf Bartov, 13/06/2015 02:42:
The (already existing) metric of
active-editors-per-million-speakers is,
it seems to me, a far more robust metric. Erik Z.'s
stats.wikimedia.org
<http://stats.wikimedia.org> is offering that metric.
I personally agree on this in general, but Millosh is trying something
different in his current quest, i.e. content ingestion and content
coverage assessment, also for missing language subdomains. (By the way,
I created the category, please add stuff:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_coverage .)
Mere article count tells us very little and he acknowledged it. As you
added analytics: maybe when
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T44259 is
fixed we can also do fancy things like join various tables and count
(countable) articles above a minimum threshold of hits, or something
like that.
Oh, and the total number of internal links in a wiki is also an
interesting metric in many cases: they're often a good indicator of how
curated a wiki globally is, while bot-created articles are often orphan.
(Locally there might be overlinking but that's rarely a wiki-wide
issue.) I don't remember how reliable the WikiStats numbers are, but
they often give a good clue already.
Nemo