maru dubshinki wrote:
On 4/9/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/06, Carl Fûrstenberg azatoth@gmail.com wrote:
link?
It should be in the dead-tree US edition.
The Graph in the original article seems to be corrected as of today:
http://www.economist.com/images/20060318/CSF428.gif
It still states:
"And after the furore over the biographical entry last year, Wikipedia changed its rules so that only registered users can edit existing entries, and new contributors must wait a few days before they can start new ones."
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5624944
That's not the only problem. They are also using a very misleading article count- we don't have three million. We only have 3M if one counts every last entry and redirect as an article.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that nothing exists outside the English Wikipedia. That kind of attitude gets us a very bad reputation in the Wikipedia community's other languages. If you read the article, you will find that the article count there (2.6 million) is explicitly described as covering 120 languages.
--Michael Snow
On 4/9/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
maru dubshinki wrote:
On 4/9/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/06, Carl Fûrstenberg azatoth@gmail.com wrote:
link?
It should be in the dead-tree US edition.
The Graph in the original article seems to be corrected as of today:
http://www.economist.com/images/20060318/CSF428.gif
It still states:
"And after the furore over the biographical entry last year, Wikipedia changed its rules so that only registered users can edit existing entries, and new contributors must wait a few days before they can start new ones."
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5624944
That's not the only problem. They are also using a very misleading article count- we don't have three million. We only have 3M if one counts every last entry and redirect as an article.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that nothing exists outside the English Wikipedia. That kind of attitude gets us a very bad reputation in the Wikipedia community's other languages. If you read the article, you will find that the article count there (2.6 million) is explicitly described as covering 120 languages.
--Michael Snow
It's still wrong then; to my withered and weary eyes, if you follow the article line to the top where it ends, it is vastly closer to 3M than 2.6M.
~maru
maru dubshinki wrote:
It's still wrong then; to my withered and weary eyes, if you follow the article line to the top where it ends, it is vastly closer to 3M than 2.6M.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZZ.htm
According to the stas, all Wikipediae in different languages had 2.9 Million articles at the end of November 2005.
One can assume that by the x>200 char-count, all the different languages (and dialects...) have now more than 3M articles.
200chars in an ideographic language might be totally different in the number of information than, hmm, lets say Finnish. It also does not include the number of "List of Something, sorted by something else"-articles, which happen to populate some editions. While they might or might not be useful (or redundant (even if you consider the possibiliies from the Semantic Mediawiki hack)), it is very hard to consider them articles.
So all in all: When a journalist asks me "How many articles do all the wikipedias have?", I feel comfortable to answer "about 3 million".
Mathias