2008/6/29 Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I'd like to propose a quality metric: The difference in rank between the article count and the compressed database size.
I think this is a good metric, especially because it's a relative metric (since it's effectively comparing projects against their peers to see how mature they are).
Someone earlier was discussing article sizes, so I hacked up a script to graph the distribution of article sizes:
Yes, but size of avarage article can be easily icreased artifically by bot-creation of inofoboxes, navigation templates, long list of categories and interwiki etc.
Take a look for example on:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telmisartan
infobox is around 90% of its content. Blame Polish Wikipedia that it allows creating such articles, I would agree with you :-) The article was created by human not by bot.
Higher average size of articles in any Wikipedia can be easilly achieved just by creating bot-only articles with plenty of statstical data, huge infobox and several navigation templates. See example, I have already shown:
http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%96%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%81_%D1%96_%D0...
Would be nice to have a tool comparing the "real" size of articles, by which I mean counting size of free text only - without all templates and other non-text stuff.