http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:100%2C000_feature-quality_articles
[[WP:100K]]
100,000 feature-quality articles by 2007.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:100%2C000_feature-quality_articles
[[WP:100K]]
100,000 feature-quality articles by 2007.
... what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Danny%27s_contest ([[WP:DC]])?
On 14/09/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:100%2C000_feature-quality_articles [[WP:100K]] 100,000 feature-quality articles by 2007.
... what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Danny%27s_contest ([[WP:DC]])?
ARGH. I just emailed him asking if a page existed for this as yet and he said no!
Ah well. Merger anyone?
- d.
Surely they can co-exist. It could only lead to more featured articles. Danny's contest is focussed on referencing specific articles. If we want to reach 100,000 we need a lot more than the ones he listed.
Mgm
On 9/14/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/09/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:100%2C000_feature-quality_articles
[[WP:100K]] 100,000 feature-quality articles by 2007.
... what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Danny%27s_contest ([[WP:DC]])?
ARGH. I just emailed him asking if a page existed for this as yet and he said no!
Ah well. Merger anyone?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 14/09/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Surely they can co-exist. It could only lead to more featured articles. Danny's contest is focussed on referencing specific articles. If we want to reach 100,000 we need a lot more than the ones he listed.
I've mentioned WP:DC on WP:100K, and should probably mention it the other way too.
- d.
Am I the only one who thinks this is absolutely impossible? I'm thinking 2,500, and even that's ambitious. Per WP:100K, each FA requires 50 editing-hours- that's 5,000,000 editing-hours for 100,000 FAs. Dividing that by 8760 hours in a year, that's over 570 editors working 24/7/365. More realistically, we'd have editors working on average maybe 2 hours a day at most, so multiply that number by 12. That's 6840 editors working 2 hours a day, 7 days a week for a year, solely on articles that they will make featured.
2,500 FAs would require only 125,000 hours, when dividing by the hours in a year it works out to be a bit over 14 editors working 24/7/365 and 168 working 2/7/365 only on creating FAs.
On 9/14/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/09/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Surely they can co-exist. It could only lead to more featured articles. Danny's contest is focussed on referencing specific articles. If we want
to
reach 100,000 we need a lot more than the ones he listed.
I've mentioned WP:DC on WP:100K, and should probably mention it the other way too.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
168 editors working two hours a day - I say we can easily have 1344 editors working 15 minutes a day, and doing other things as well. FA criteria should be relaxed a lot though.
On 9/15/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is absolutely impossible? I'm thinking 2,500, and even that's ambitious. Per WP:100K, each FA requires 50 editing-hours- that's 5,000,000 editing-hours for 100,000 FAs. Dividing that by 8760 hours in a year, that's over 570 editors working 24/7/365. More realistically, we'd have editors working on average maybe 2 hours a day at most, so multiply that number by 12. That's 6840 editors working 2 hours a day, 7 days a week for a year, solely on articles that they will make featured.
2,500 FAs would require only 125,000 hours, when dividing by the hours in a year it works out to be a bit over 14 editors working 24/7/365 and 168 working 2/7/365 only on creating FAs.
On 9/14/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/09/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Surely they can co-exist. It could only lead to more featured articles. Danny's contest is focussed on referencing specific articles. If we want
to
reach 100,000 we need a lot more than the ones he listed.
I've mentioned WP:DC on WP:100K, and should probably mention it the other way too.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 14/09/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is absolutely impossible? I'm thinking 2,500, and even that's ambitious. Per WP:100K, each FA requires 50 editing-hours- that's 5,000,000 editing-hours for 100,000 FAs. Dividing that by 8760 hours in a year, that's over 570 editors working 24/7/365. More realistically, we'd have editors working on average maybe 2 hours a day at most, so multiply that number by 12. That's 6840 editors working 2 hours a day, 7 days a week for a year, solely on articles that they will make featured. 2,500 FAs would require only 125,000 hours, when dividing by the hours in a year it works out to be a bit over 14 editors working 24/7/365 and 168 working 2/7/365 only on creating FAs.
I'm not presuming the FA process as it stands or anything like it; I am presuming the FA criteria.
It's probably impossible. So?
- d.
It's so hard to write FAs though....and 100,000 means about 10% of all existing articles. Many existing articles are redirects, disambigs, lists, etc. and others don't have enough info on the topic to be featured. I don't like being someone's fantasy nazi, but it seems extremely difficult, if not impossible. It would be more logical to aim for 10,000, or even 5,000 FAs.
On 9/15/06, ikiroid ikiroid@gmail.com wrote:
It's so hard to write FAs though....and 100,000 means about 10% of all existing articles. Many existing articles are redirects, disambigs, lists, etc. and others don't have enough info on the topic to be featured. I don't like being someone's fantasy nazi, but it seems extremely difficult, if not impossible. It would be more logical to aim for 10,000, or even 5,000 FAs. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I totally agree it's hard, but I'm sure the article count excluded stubs and redirects. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with aiming high, but aiming just a little lower may get more pessimistic people into gear.
Mgm
Actually, I always assumed that the number of articles template included absolutely every article, including vandalism CSD articles and stubs.
On 9/15/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/15/06, ikiroid ikiroid@gmail.com wrote:
It's so hard to write FAs though....and 100,000 means about 10% of all existing articles. Many existing articles are redirects, disambigs, lists, etc. and others don't have enough info on the topic to be featured. I don't like being someone's fantasy nazi, but it seems extremely difficult, if not impossible. It would be more logical to aim for 10,000, or even 5,000 FAs. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I totally agree it's hard, but I'm sure the article count excluded stubs and redirects. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with aiming high, but aiming just a little lower may get more pessimistic people into gear.
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I always assumed that the number of articles template included absolutely every article, including vandalism CSD articles and stubs.
"Number of articles" does indeed include every article, which is defined as everything in the main namespace *except* for redirects and pages which have no internal links (ie, completely unwikified material)
It does count disambiguation pages and stubs, though I get the impression that the first one of these is more by chance than design.
On 14/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:100%2C000_feature-quality_articles [[WP:100K]] 100,000 feature-quality articles by 2007.
by *end* of 2007.
(So much for striking minimalist announcements.)
- d.