On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 16:03, geni<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/7/14 Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>om>:
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#Logis…
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
1001010 1001000110000111011001101100