On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any reason for alarm in the data that we do have.
According to statistics which you gave (btw, thanks for pointing to them, I didn't know where to find them):
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaCOMMONS.htm
Commons is in a constant and significant decrease since May 2007.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaINCUBATOR.htm
In not so strong decrease since January 2008 (but we don't have data after May 2008)
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaSOURCES.htm
Old Wikisource is not so big project and it is not possible to make precise conclusions.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
All Wiktionaries together stay well, this is true.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:ProofreadPage_Statistics
It seems that all Wikisources together had begun decrease at the beginning of 2008. However, according to the second link, it seem that they stays well. (BTW, I would like to see a short explanation of the significance of ProofreadPage extension and pages which used them.)
BTW, again, number articles *will* raise except there are big problems. One new page per month means that there is one article more and somewhat bigger database. I explained in one of the previous emails [1] why some data are more relevant than others. (If you have objections to this approach, please let me know what are the errors of the method.)
And, again, I would be really happy to see that I am wrong. I didn't spend significant time in analysis just because I like to spread defeatism; but to point to the problem.
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-October/046831.html