Historically consistent? Hmm, the article's main story is about how historical in-wiki data are unreliable and a periodic recount is needed. Just saying.
And the main theme in comments is "do we care about article count?"
Erik
-----Original Message----- From: analytics-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:analytics-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 21:38 To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. Subject: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts
From this week’s Signpost, worth reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-20/In_foc...
this is a great illustration of why we need stateless, historically and globally consistent measurements to report the growth of Wikimedia projects (and particularly why the legacy definition of a “countable” article is ridiculously problematic):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Refining_the_definition_of_monthly_... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics_standardization
Dario _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics