In a message dated 9/21/2006 7:02:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 2.718281828@gmail.com writes:
Not while on mailing lists, we're not; certainly not on this one.
But consider Wikipedia: the vast majority of pages are not in the main namespace. Is this in accordance with, or in opposition to, the natural order of what we are supposed to be busy doing?
++SJ
If you mean the talk pages, those are intended to work out the nuances of articles. In effect, they are an essential--integral--part of article building. If you mean policy pages, they are a small percentage of our 1.3 million article pages. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?
Danny
If you mean the talk pages, those are intended to work out the nuances of articles. In effect, they are an essential--integral--part of article building. If you mean policy pages, they are a small percentage of our 1.3 million article pages. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?
Also, user pages, user subpages, user talk, templates, categories, portals, images and other files and their descriptions, guidelines, essays, proposals, FAC. RfA, AfD, other "votes" and discussions, interface pages, help pages, draft articles, archives, WikiProjects, vandalism reports, mediation, arbitration, other committees, etc, etc. Articles only make up 25% of the English Wikipedia.
Angela.
On 21-Sep-06, at 4:46 PM, Angela wrote:
If you mean the talk pages, those are intended to work out the nuances of articles. In effect, they are an essential--integral--part of article building. If you mean policy pages, they are a small percentage of our 1.3 million article pages. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?
Also, user pages, user subpages, user talk, templates, categories, portals, images and other files and their descriptions, guidelines, essays, proposals, FAC. RfA, AfD, other "votes" and discussions, interface pages, help pages, draft articles, archives, WikiProjects, vandalism reports, mediation, arbitration, other committees, etc, etc. Articles only make up 25% of the English Wikipedia.
Angela.
Actually, I just requested a run against the database on Toolserver. 48% of entries in the dataset are in the main namespace, and 13% are Talk pages. This number includes redirects and stubs, of course, but it's a rather different number than is being discussed here.
Amgine
On 9/22/06, Amgine amgine@saewyc.net wrote:
Articles only make up 25% of the English Wikipedia.
Actually, I just requested a run against the database on Toolserver. 48% of entries in the dataset are in the main namespace
I was defining "article" in the same way [[Special:Statistics]] does.
Angela.
On 21-Sep-06, at 5:22 PM, Angela wrote:
On 9/22/06, Amgine amgine@saewyc.net wrote:
Articles only make up 25% of the English Wikipedia.
Actually, I just requested a run against the database on Toolserver. 48% of entries in the dataset are in the main namespace
I was defining "article" in the same way [[Special:Statistics]] does.
Angela.
Ah... when we attempted apply that metric (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_an_article) to all the namespaces the numbers did change dramaticaly. Main namespace articles dropped to 33%, and article talk pages climbed to 16%. So then the articles *do* drop below 50% of the content.
Amgine
On 9/21/06, Amgine amgine@saewyc.net wrote:
Actually, I just requested a run against the database on Toolserver. 48% of entries in the dataset are in the main namespace, and 13% are Talk pages. This number includes redirects and stubs, of course, but it's a rather different number than is being discussed here.
It's WAY more than 50% if you count by revision.
wikidb=> select page_namespace=0 as main_ns,count(page_title) from analysis_user group by (page_namespace=0); main_ns | count -------------+---------- t | 42893625 f | 15652166 (2 rows)
If in fact waking about writing an encyclopedia were indeed more popular, it would be a sad thing indeed... But I suppose it's only natural for everyone to think their own involvement is the most important...
I for one am glad that Wikipedia isn't MYSPACE... although I suppose that the truth might suck for those from Wikia.
On 9/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's WAY more than 50% if you count by revision.
wikidb=> select page_namespace=0 as main_ns,count(page_title) from analysis_user group by (page_namespace=0); main_ns | count -------------+---------- t | 42893625 f | 15652166 (2 rows)
If in fact waking about writing an encyclopedia were indeed more popular, it would be a sad thing indeed... But I suppose it's only natural for everyone to think their own involvement is the most important...
Now, now :-)
I like these numbers. To restate my last question -- 25% of all revisions are to non-article pages. Is this in accordance with the goal of producing a great encyclopedia, or is this noise that we should eventually reduce to a more manageable level?
--SJ
On 9/21/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
I like these numbers. To restate my last question -- 25% of all revisions are to non-article pages. Is this in accordance with the goal of producing a great encyclopedia, or is this noise that we should eventually reduce to a more manageable level?
Some of it is noise. Some of it is necessary. But pretty much none of it can be reduced, as stopping people from creating noise would produce more noise than it would eliminate.
Anthony
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org