On 21 January 2015 at 10:20, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If you just need ballpark numbers, the proposed
approach might work. If you
want to produce something concretely usable, it's going to be much more
complex:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Measuring_mission_success
In particular, 100k is a ridiculous number and restricting yourself to
Wikipedia means for many languages you'll lose the most important content
people are looking for, e.g. on Wiktionary and Wikisource (dictionaries,
original literature and official documents in that language).
I'm not sure I'd go for "most important", but yes, I agree - an
aggregated total of xx.wikisource, xx.wikipedia, xx.wiktionary,
xx.wikibooks might well be useful.
Abdel Samad, Rawia, 21/01/2015 09:47:
·We are currently using the article count by language based on
Wikimedia’s foundation public link: Source:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias. Is this a reliable
source for article count – does it include stubs?
0) You'd better use its source,
http://wikistats.wmflabs.org/,
1) which is as reliable as Special:Statistics is, i.e. not so much;
2) and uses the official
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Article_count
definition, as
stats.wikimedia.org (now) does,
3) calling "good" and "stub" what is now called "countable"
and
"non-countable".
...agh, so
wikistats.wmflabs.org uses a completely different
definition of 'stub' to the one we use on the wikis? One more source
of confusion :-)
·What are the
biggest drivers you’ve seen for step change in the number
of articles (e.g., number of active admins, machine translation, etc.)
Bot imports, clearly. The number of articles is an extremely poor metric for
measuring "coverage".
Agreed.
Andrew Gray, 21/01/2015 10:18:
This uses a definition of "article
count" which is a little more
generous, and counts all pages in the main namespace.
It doesn't.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Search/Analytics/Metrics_definitions
You're quite right - I'd misremembered and then been lulled into a
false sense of confirmation by Wikistats being larger :-)
Is it fair to say that:
a) both Wikistats and the on-wiki Special:Statistics use the same
article-count measure (ns0, one outbound link/category, not a
redirect);
b) for various reasons these two sources for the data don't always line up;
c) but all told, it's as good a measure as we have
Andrew.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk