On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 16:03, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/14 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Ian Woollard wrote:
It's looking to me like 3.5 million is about the plateau, since the curve is bang on that, but we might make 4 million *eventually*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth#Logist...
We'll know more around the beginning of 2010. In my view something is likely to change in the direction of people valuing lists of "missing articles" more, when it is clearer that drive-by creation is getting drossier by the month (which is what that model implies). Of course I can't quantify that: I know it is still easy to come up with sets of 1000 topics that we don't cover at all well, and the total of redlinks is still large.
Charles
Redlinks in general perhaps. Redlinks in articles a significant number of people actually read less so.
Redlinks are likely to be a poor estimate of numbers of "missing" articles anyway. Some will be to articles that would be non-notable, and redlinks tend to be removed - in other words links that would be present if we had the article aren't there as redlinks.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l