Alas, judging a language edition by Wikimedia Statistics does not work.
Indonesian, Asturian and Volapük WPs have the same "depth" (8), but id.WP is a very good WP. How comes? There not so many edits per article in id.WP, because it has translated a lot from English. A legitimate way to create (good) articles, but it does not need a lot of edits.
Bot activity: Indeed, "bot bumps" can often easily be detected in stats tables. Especially the small Wikipedias (I suppose) show (relatively) many bot activities due to interwiki linking. On the other hand, pseudo articles can be created by hand (let a script create it outside WP and then insert it "manually").
Ziko
2008/6/27 Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com:
The depth criterion available here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_wikipedias is a good starting point. I quote: "The "Depth" column ((Edits/Articles) × (Non-Articles/Articles) × (Stub-ratio)) is a rough indicator of a Wikipedia's quality, showing how frequently its articles are updated."
Note that indeed Volapuek, Polish, Ripuarian and others have very low depth ranking.
Harel
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
It would be good if the community found a different way to compare or to measure it's successes.
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l