Hoi,
Apparantly we do not agree on what makes a project relevant. Yes, the
English language Wikipedia is relevant. The numbers prove it. However there
are metrics you do not consider like what the relevance of a project is for
a culture, the continued existence of a language. To me this transcends the
material metrics that you use.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 10/23/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/23/07, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/23/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
At the same time, though, the English language Wikipedia is by far the
most successful project.
{{citation needed}}
Define success?
Viewership? Wikipedia size? English Wikipedia wins the simple
objective criteria like that hands down.
In September, En.wikipedia got 3,980,356,000 page views while JP had
767,759,000, De 559,142,000, Es 357,520,000, Fr 241,531,000.
En also has the most world-wide representation:
http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org/wikipedia-viewer-matrix.html
Quality? Free Content? Coverage in certain knowledge domains? Harder
to measure, and I'd accept an argument that some other projects might
be able to claim the crown on some of these ... but Anthony said:
Of course it's going to dominate interviews
and presentations and news and discussions. These are things the
foundation couldn't control even if it wanted to. And surely the
English language Wikipedia generates the most revenue. As a result,
shouldn't it be entitled to spend an equivalent portion of that
revenue?
Sounds likey that viewership is the right metric for his argument. You
shouldn't even need to ask for a citation for that one.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l