On 6/24/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
We're slowly reaching at least basic
completeness in some fields; a
lot of the missing-articles lists are beginning to top out. There's
still a long way to go, though.
It would be fascinating to see a global view of this. I know we have a
lot of WikiProjects that track completeness in indivdiual fields, but
a way of combining these into an overall view, like "Politicians: UK
20% missing, 60% stub, 20% advanced" or something, would be amazing.
It would also be then interesting to compare that "top down" view with
a "bottom up" view, whereby articles are sampled at random for quality
and to see what domains they belong to.
Steve
Not workable. We can't say that by adding up all the lists and then
seeing what the master percentage is that we know how incomplete
Wikipedia is: there are tons and tons of areas that simply don't have
lists, and the current lists are incomplete. So you *could* try the
master list idea, but I'd think that it would be overly optimistic,
since having a list implies people interested enough to write those
articles, and lists are always too short.
~maru