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(a)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_fo…
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics