The figures for Cebano is: 20 M speakers (60th biggest language in world) and 13 active contributors (compare to Dutch 28 M speakers 1183 active)
Waray-Waray has 3,1 M speakers 11 active contributors (but 4 new ones!) (compare to Slovene 2,4 M speakers, 141 active)
Sverker (who runs lsjbot) has met the few editors and their frustration in wanting to make their language established but are so extremely few to make this happen.
On the Quality side, we have identified (and corrected) around 0,02 % of the Lsjbot generated articles from error occurring from COL (mostly like given a the same specie a name ending with -a alternatively -um) and we estimate a total of around 0,1% of the articles generated have errors like this. In manually created articles we have an error rate in entering of data from sources of between 1-3%, and of mere sever character.
Also I wonder how many has looked into the quality of our language versions with fewer then 15 active contributors? I have and the findings are harirraising. Many of them have more unreverted vandal edits then serious edits and may many have fewer then a hundred serious edits a week and many fewer then 10.
I believe we should respect that the reality for our language version are looks significantly different.
And I would like to applaud the editors on Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia in their effort against odds to get a viable version up and running, in whatever way they find being of value for them.
And to be judgemental to their (all serious) choices to work with their Wikiedpiaversions I believe is highly unfair.
We should all support these good struggling effort, like Sverkar has done in person and with a lot of time and effort.
And these people have never had as an ambition to appear on this list, it is also highly unfair indicating that they are to blamed in any way for what they have done
Anders
Asaf Bartov skrev den 2015-07-07 01:46:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
it's a good starting point. But rather that contributorsyn a "tootsp" list, perhaps we should be looking at "number of editors/number of speakers"?
We (well, some of us, I guess), have indeed been looking at that figure (one might call it "editorship penetration", as in "Internet penetration"). Erik Zachte's stats site helpfully provides that metric in the "summary" view for a language. E.g. Bulgarian Wikipedia has 20 editors-per-million speakers[1], German has 31[2], Hebrew has 147[3], and Waray has 4[4]. Other useful, robust figures are the aforementioned active editor count (and very-active editor count).
Speaking at least for the Community Resources (formerly Grantmaking) team at WMF, I can say we have been paying a lot more attention to these figures than to article counts.
A.[1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryBG.htm [2] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryDE.htm [3] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryHE.htm [4] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryWAR.htm