Oh, ok! Now pinging Discovery Dan. (:
Search is a Discovery team focus, rather than a Readership focus. I'd
suggest reaching out to Dan Garry (we have been talking about project
integration very recently, actually).
On 16 September 2015 at 15:32, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking in terms of GB of text.
>
> I too have wondered about creating closer ties between Wiktionary, Wikipedia
> and Wikisource so that it's easier for someone to start their search on one
> site and quickly find relevant pages on the other sites. This might (among
> other things) lead to an increase in pageviews. (Adding Toby to this email
> chain to see if he has any thoughts about that.) It would also conceivably
> lead to an increase in the "size" of Wikipedia (measured in bytes, content
> pages, and contributors) if Wiktionary and Wikisource were, for purposes of
> the reader, practically the same site. The downside might be increased
> complexity for contributors as the number of workflows increases, and the
> standards for inclusion may be different.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:21 AM, WereSpielChequers
> <werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that English Wikipedia is the largest English language
>> encyclopaedia, but there are some humongous ones in China.
>>
>> Baidu Baike with almost 12.5 million articles is way bigger than any one
>> language version of Wikipedia and Baike.com formerly Hudong is about a
>> million bigger still.
>>
>> Ok they are more inclusionist than us, recipes included, and they have
>> somewhat dropped the distinction between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia.
>>
>> So you can claim that Wikipedia with near 35 million articles in 288
>> languages is the largest encyclopaedia ever. Adding wiktionary would make
>> that even bigger.
>>
>> Source Wikipedia - I'm afraid I don't speak Chinese to check them myself.
>>
>> Of course articles is a flawed metric, combining almost all the individual
>> Pokemon articles into a handful of lists reduced the number of Wikipedia
>> articles by hundreds, but still left us with more information on Pokemon
>> than I would want to see in a printed encyclopaedia. But then can anyone
>> suggest a meaningful metric for comparing such projects; Participants?
>> Contributed edits? Shelf space if printed in traditional encyclopaedia sized
>> books? Gigabytes of text? Trays of microfiche?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On 16 Sep 2015, at 01:24, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pine,
>>
>> TL;DR: best to just say it's the largest encyclopedia ever. That should be
>> safe.
>>
>> Claims like this are hard to make because terms that seem concrete from
>> afar tend to break down up close. For example: What do you mean by largest?
>>
>> Largest in bytes? Words? Content "units" (articles vs. manuscripts in this
>> case, I guess)? Contributors?
>>
>> What do you mean by "open text project"? Is archive.org an open text
>> project? It has 8.2 million books. How would you compare the two? Does 1
>> book = 1 article?
>>
>> Having said all that, I'm curious how others have/would craft a claim like
>> this. My guess is that most of us who've written for an academic audience
>> have settled for some variant of "largest encyclopedia" (you've got to put
>> something in your Introduction paragraph, after all). What sayst?
>>
>> J
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi researchers,
>>>
>>> I could use a little help with understanding these dumps:
>>>
>>> https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwikisource/latest/
>>>
>>> https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20150901/
>>>
>>> I'm trying to verify the claim that ENWP is the world's largest open text
>>> project, and to do that I need to verify that ENWP is larger than English
>>> Wikisource. Which files should I be comparing?
>>>
>>> Are there any other projects that could make a claim to be a larger open
>>> text project than ENWP? Perhaps there's a library somewhere that has such a
>>> huge volume of out-of-copyright materials that the combined bytes of
>>> published text are larger than ENWP?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Pine
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan T. Morgan
>> Senior Design Researcher
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> User:Jmorgan (WMF)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
--
Oliver Keyes
Count Logula
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l