Hoi, For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over 260 projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important things that are happening.
I would be interested in more study looking at the "other" wikipedias. This is where all kinds of other phenomena exist.
Yesterday Siebrand observed that there is a group of languages that have solid localisations and, the current localisation rally makes this group stand out even more. We have the impression that this coincides with the vitality of projects; German French Dutch are top performers in localisation they have a healthy community and provide a great Wikipedia. For languages like Spanish Turkish Swedish Italian it is still possible for people to take part in the translatewiki.net localisation rally. People who participate on languages like Estonian and Khmer find that they have to concentrate on doing the most used and MediaWiki core messages first (our rationale being that our Wikipedia readers are best served in this way.
With a sample size fof 260, it becomes possible to do research into the effect of localisation and the performance of a project. As LocalisationUpdate is being tested for use in the WMF, timely delivery of localisations becomes a reality once it is implemented. This will give the numbers of localisation and performance a much more direct relation with each other... The question is, if someone is interested in the numbers provided by such research..
It is known for languages like Bangla that Wikipedia is the biggest resource in that language in that language, I can imagine that this is true for other languages as well. When a Wikipedia has such a status, it changes the relevance of that Wikipedia for scientists who study thea language. It is interesting to learn what the effects are on the people who use the internet in these languages. With Wikipedia being the biggest resource does this populate the Google search results and, does this make the Internet more of a worthwhile experience?
We know that things like sources, NPOV, BLP are particularly relevant on our biggest projects. On our smaller projects these things do not get the same attention. Here it is more important to have articles in the first place. The make-up of these communities is likely to be utterly different as well. Would it not be nice to understand how our projects are populated and study how it evolves over time? At what stage all kinds of policies start to kick in?
Research, the numbers they provide are important on many levels. They indicate issues, they indicate where we want to put our resources. The lack of research on the other Wikipedias make the other Wikipedias invisible, issues particular to other languages do not get attention and consequently resources needed to address issues are not available.
My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia as a whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English Wikipedia's growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of standard encyclopaedic information in the other projects. This in turn will bring up many subjects that en.wp does not cover. The existence of articles on subjects not covered in en.wp are indicative of a bias and once en.wp starts to cover these subjects it will improve its neutral point of view.. Consequently ALL our Wikipedias including en.wp will benefit from research on the "other" Wikipedias. Thanks, GerardM
Hello Gerard,
Regarding you main point call for research I have nothing to say but Hear! Hear!! HEAR!!! ;)
Some small example (casestudy): recently I <s>requested</s> asked for as much statistics data about WMF board elections as possible just because I'm eager to make series of researches and possibly make them regular if not neverending - like 24*7 dashboards or something like that.
There is one thing which might be either sorta objection to what you've wrote (to one aspect of that) or proposal for research agenda: Are all Wikipedias really separate projects or all of them are segments of one single international project? Certainly 'single project' model provides very different level of different segments autonomy and some (many? most?) of them are loosely coupled yet (?or forever?). Let me mention Siebrand in this context as well (as you did): who is Siebrand and his SieBot for, say, Ukrainian Wikipedia? Should we say (shout? :) ) something like "Siebrand, go home and take your bot with you! We have *our* bots and it's Ukrainian-made bots who has a right to process Ukrainian Wikipedia"? ;-P ... or just the opposite - interwiki maintaining (beginning from deep interwiki research by the way) is concern of integral pan-Wikipedia community so the only choice is teamwork with Siebrand?
Sincerely,
Pavlo Shevelo
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over 260 projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important things that are happening.
I would be interested in more study looking at the "other" wikipedias. This is where all kinds of other phenomena exist.
Yesterday Siebrand observed that there is a group of languages that have solid localisations and, the current localisation rally makes this group stand out even more. We have the impression that this coincides with the vitality of projects; German French Dutch are top performers in localisation they have a healthy community and provide a great Wikipedia. For languages like Spanish Turkish Swedish Italian it is still possible for people to take part in the translatewiki.net localisation rally. People who participate on languages like Estonian and Khmer find that they have to concentrate on doing the most used and MediaWiki core messages first (our rationale being that our Wikipedia readers are best served in this way.
With a sample size fof 260, it becomes possible to do research into the effect of localisation and the performance of a project. As LocalisationUpdate is being tested for use in the WMF, timely delivery of localisations becomes a reality once it is implemented. This will give the numbers of localisation and performance a much more direct relation with each other... The question is, if someone is interested in the numbers provided by such research..
It is known for languages like Bangla that Wikipedia is the biggest resource in that language in that language, I can imagine that this is true for other languages as well. When a Wikipedia has such a status, it changes the relevance of that Wikipedia for scientists who study thea language. It is interesting to learn what the effects are on the people who use the internet in these languages. With Wikipedia being the biggest resource does this populate the Google search results and, does this make the Internet more of a worthwhile experience?
We know that things like sources, NPOV, BLP are particularly relevant on our biggest projects. On our smaller projects these things do not get the same attention. Here it is more important to have articles in the first place. The make-up of these communities is likely to be utterly different as well. Would it not be nice to understand how our projects are populated and study how it evolves over time? At what stage all kinds of policies start to kick in?
Research, the numbers they provide are important on many levels. They indicate issues, they indicate where we want to put our resources. The lack of research on the other Wikipedias make the other Wikipedias invisible, issues particular to other languages do not get attention and consequently resources needed to address issues are not available.
My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia as a whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English Wikipedia's growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of standard encyclopaedic information in the other projects. This in turn will bring up many subjects that en.wp does not cover. The existence of articles on subjects not covered in en.wp are indicative of a bias and once en.wp starts to cover these subjects it will improve its neutral point of view.. Consequently ALL our Wikipedias including en.wp will benefit from research on the "other" Wikipedias. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, I am very much a proponent of those who consider Wikipedia one project with many iterations in a language project and community. For me it means that there are several basic requirements for all Wikipedias. The content being freely licensed and of a neutral point of view are core values I also consider it essential that Wikipedia is open to new people who want to contribute to what we already do, as such I would welcome new projects that fit in the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation.
As to people like Siebrand, he performs several crucial functions for MediaWiki and Wikipedia and I consider him one of the most important people in and for the Wikimedia Foundation. He plays a central role in translatewiki.net, with Raymond_ he commits the localisations to SVN after doing some quality assurance to the localisations. As a consequence of his internationalisation and QA work he is the one of the most prolific contributors to MediaWiki. He also runs Siebot for ages and he does not only but also work on the interwikilinks that bring our projects together.
In answer to your question, the activities that Siebrand is involved in are best done in a collaborative way. Actually given the nature of Wikipedia it is the only way. Thanks, Gerard
2009/8/16 Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com
Hello Gerard,
Regarding you main point call for research I have nothing to say but Hear! Hear!! HEAR!!! ;)
Some small example (casestudy): recently I <s>requested</s> asked for as much statistics data about WMF board elections as possible just because I'm eager to make series of researches and possibly make them regular if not neverending - like 24*7 dashboards or something like that.
There is one thing which might be either sorta objection to what you've wrote (to one aspect of that) or proposal for research agenda: Are all Wikipedias really separate projects or all of them are segments of one single international project? Certainly 'single project' model provides very different level of different segments autonomy and some (many? most?) of them are loosely coupled yet (?or forever?). Let me mention Siebrand in this context as well (as you did): who is Siebrand and his SieBot for, say, Ukrainian Wikipedia? Should we say (shout? :) ) something like "Siebrand, go home and take your bot with you! We have *our* bots and it's Ukrainian-made bots who has a right to process Ukrainian Wikipedia"? ;-P ... or just the opposite - interwiki maintaining (beginning from deep interwiki research by the way) is concern of integral pan-Wikipedia community so the only choice is teamwork with Siebrand?
Sincerely,
Pavlo Shevelo
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over
260
projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important things that are happening.
I would be interested in more study looking at the "other" wikipedias.
This
is where all kinds of other phenomena exist.
Yesterday Siebrand observed that there is a group of languages that have solid localisations and, the current localisation rally makes this group stand out even more. We have the impression that this coincides with the vitality of projects; German French Dutch are top performers in
localisation
they have a healthy community and provide a great Wikipedia. For
languages
like Spanish Turkish Swedish Italian it is still possible for people to
take
part in the translatewiki.net localisation rally. People who participate
on
languages like Estonian and Khmer find that they have to concentrate on doing the most used and MediaWiki core messages first (our rationale
being
that our Wikipedia readers are best served in this way.
With a sample size fof 260, it becomes possible to do research into the effect of localisation and the performance of a project. As LocalisationUpdate is being tested for use in the WMF, timely delivery of localisations becomes a reality once it is implemented. This will give
the
numbers of localisation and performance a much more direct relation with each other... The question is, if someone is interested in the numbers provided by such research..
It is known for languages like Bangla that Wikipedia is the biggest
resource
in that language in that language, I can imagine that this is true for
other
languages as well. When a Wikipedia has such a status, it changes the relevance of that Wikipedia for scientists who study thea language. It is interesting to learn what the effects are on the people who use the
internet
in these languages. With Wikipedia being the biggest resource does this populate the Google search results and, does this make the Internet more
of
a worthwhile experience?
We know that things like sources, NPOV, BLP are particularly relevant on
our
biggest projects. On our smaller projects these things do not get the
same
attention. Here it is more important to have articles in the first place. The make-up of these communities is likely to be utterly different as
well.
Would it not be nice to understand how our projects are populated and
study
how it evolves over time? At what stage all kinds of policies start to
kick
in?
Research, the numbers they provide are important on many levels. They indicate issues, they indicate where we want to put our resources. The
lack
of research on the other Wikipedias make the other Wikipedias invisible, issues particular to other languages do not get attention and
consequently
resources needed to address issues are not available.
My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia
as a
whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English
Wikipedia's
growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of standard encyclopaedic information in the other projects. This in turn
will
bring up many subjects that en.wp does not cover. The existence of
articles
on subjects not covered in en.wp are indicative of a bias and once en.wp starts to cover these subjects it will improve its neutral point of
view..
Consequently ALL our Wikipedias including en.wp will benefit from
research
on the "other" Wikipedias. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So let me make a summary of our common position:
What all Wikipedias has in common is following: * «What we're doing»: mission statement and core values - like content being freely licensed, openness to newcomers ("...everybody can edit") etc. * «How we're doing that» (Howto): 'Requirements' and policies (regulations) - like NPOV * «Agenda» - list of issues/concerns/objectives which are common for all Wikipedias (to get interwiki network tidy and in order - one of the most natural examples); * «Action»: Real cross-wiki teamwork in research, corrections etc. - in handling items (actionitems) from agenda.
So regarding your point: we will * facilitate the research proposal (scope etc.); * put it on (to?) the common agenda; * arrange teams ('special interest groups'); ... (KPI ;) ...)
Right?
Regarding Siebrand - that was mainly joke to illustrate my point (to have some spotlight on it). We respect him and have no problem in teamworking with him.
Sincerely,
Pavlo
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am very much a proponent of those who consider Wikipedia one project with many iterations in a language project and community. For me it means that there are several basic requirements for all Wikipedias. The content being freely licensed and of a neutral point of view are core values I also consider it essential that Wikipedia is open to new people who want to contribute to what we already do, as such I would welcome new projects that fit in the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation.
As to people like Siebrand, he performs several crucial functions for MediaWiki and Wikipedia and I consider him one of the most important people in and for the Wikimedia Foundation. He plays a central role in translatewiki.net, with Raymond_ he commits the localisations to SVN after doing some quality assurance to the localisations. As a consequence of his internationalisation and QA work he is the one of the most prolific contributors to MediaWiki. He also runs Siebot for ages and he does not only but also work on the interwikilinks that bring our projects together.
In answer to your question, the activities that Siebrand is involved in are best done in a collaborative way. Actually given the nature of Wikipedia it is the only way. Thanks, Gerard
2009/8/16 Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com
Hello Gerard,
Regarding you main point call for research I have nothing to say but Hear! Hear!! HEAR!!! ;)
Some small example (casestudy): recently I <s>requested</s> asked for as much statistics data about WMF board elections as possible just because I'm eager to make series of researches and possibly make them regular if not neverending - like 24*7 dashboards or something like that.
There is one thing which might be either sorta objection to what you've wrote (to one aspect of that) or proposal for research agenda: Are all Wikipedias really separate projects or all of them are segments of one single international project? Certainly 'single project' model provides very different level of different segments autonomy and some (many? most?) of them are loosely coupled yet (?or forever?). Let me mention Siebrand in this context as well (as you did): who is Siebrand and his SieBot for, say, Ukrainian Wikipedia? Should we say (shout? :) ) something like "Siebrand, go home and take your bot with you! We have *our* bots and it's Ukrainian-made bots who has a right to process Ukrainian Wikipedia"? ;-P ... or just the opposite - interwiki maintaining (beginning from deep interwiki research by the way) is concern of integral pan-Wikipedia community so the only choice is teamwork with Siebrand?
Sincerely,
Pavlo Shevelo
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over
260
projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important things that are happening.
I would be interested in more study looking at the "other" wikipedias.
This
is where all kinds of other phenomena exist.
Yesterday Siebrand observed that there is a group of languages that have solid localisations and, the current localisation rally makes this group stand out even more. We have the impression that this coincides with the vitality of projects; German French Dutch are top performers in
localisation
they have a healthy community and provide a great Wikipedia. For
languages
like Spanish Turkish Swedish Italian it is still possible for people to
take
part in the translatewiki.net localisation rally. People who participate
on
languages like Estonian and Khmer find that they have to concentrate on doing the most used and MediaWiki core messages first (our rationale
being
that our Wikipedia readers are best served in this way.
With a sample size fof 260, it becomes possible to do research into the effect of localisation and the performance of a project. As LocalisationUpdate is being tested for use in the WMF, timely delivery of localisations becomes a reality once it is implemented. This will give
the
numbers of localisation and performance a much more direct relation with each other... The question is, if someone is interested in the numbers provided by such research..
It is known for languages like Bangla that Wikipedia is the biggest
resource
in that language in that language, I can imagine that this is true for
other
languages as well. When a Wikipedia has such a status, it changes the relevance of that Wikipedia for scientists who study thea language. It is interesting to learn what the effects are on the people who use the
internet
in these languages. With Wikipedia being the biggest resource does this populate the Google search results and, does this make the Internet more
of
a worthwhile experience?
We know that things like sources, NPOV, BLP are particularly relevant on
our
biggest projects. On our smaller projects these things do not get the
same
attention. Here it is more important to have articles in the first place. The make-up of these communities is likely to be utterly different as
well.
Would it not be nice to understand how our projects are populated and
study
how it evolves over time? At what stage all kinds of policies start to
kick
in?
Research, the numbers they provide are important on many levels. They indicate issues, they indicate where we want to put our resources. The
lack
of research on the other Wikipedias make the other Wikipedias invisible, issues particular to other languages do not get attention and
consequently
resources needed to address issues are not available.
My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia
as a
whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English
Wikipedia's
growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of standard encyclopaedic information in the other projects. This in turn
will
bring up many subjects that en.wp does not cover. The existence of
articles
on subjects not covered in en.wp are indicative of a bias and once en.wp starts to cover these subjects it will improve its neutral point of
view..
Consequently ALL our Wikipedias including en.wp will benefit from
research
on the "other" Wikipedias. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
- «Action»: Real cross-wiki teamwork in research, corrections etc. -
in handling items (actionitems) from agenda.
For the beginning if you want ;)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Multilingualism
(forgotten ideas, but resurrection is possible):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_featured_articles
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_good_articles
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_coordination
etc. etc.
przykuta
2009/8/16 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over 260 projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important things that are happening.
Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth? Large ones, small ones? *That* is interesting. Let's see if we can encourage PARC along these lines. Or indeed competing researchers.
- d.
Hoi,
- Many of the Wikipedias do not show any growth - other Wikipedias are young and they do not get the kind of attention like en.wp did - they do not have a Jimbo to evangelise their project. - often the language technology does not really support their language - a lack of localisation hampers acceptance - how to get past the bus factor while the project is still small - other Wikipedias are much bigger and may be plotted on such a graph however, there are so many things different that is makes little sense if you do not study why projects behave like they do.
Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/16 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
2009/8/16 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over
260
projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important things that are happening.
Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth? Large ones, small ones? *That* is interesting. Let's see if we can encourage PARC along these lines. Or indeed competing researchers.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Gerard wrote:
Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth?
I don't think it's an S-curve. I think we are seeing linear growth, with a few exceptions in the very early days (years). But hey, that's growth in the number of articles. We shouldn't focus on the number of articles, but on the overall usefulness.
Day 1: Create article "Apple is a fruit". Day 2: Create article "Pear is a fruit". Day 3: Extend article about apples. Add photos. Cite sources.
Day 3: Zero growth in the number of articles. Panic!!!
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Lars Aronssonlars@aronsson.se wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth?
I don't think it's an S-curve. I think we are seeing linear growth, with a few exceptions in the very early days (years). But hey, that's growth in the number of articles. We shouldn't focus on the number of articles, but on the overall usefulness.
Day 1: Create article "Apple is a fruit". Day 2: Create article "Pear is a fruit". Day 3: Extend article about apples. Add photos. Cite sources.
Day 3: Zero growth in the number of articles. Panic!!!
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Which is why the article count means nothing. Tim pointed out some time ago (I can't find the quote offhand, pardon my paraphrasing) about the article counter being terribly inaccurate over the years--counter drift I believe was his exact phrasing. A re-run of the full count would probably result in a very different number than what we think. I'm not talking to the tune of hundreds of thousands of articles, but probably at least a few thousands lower than what we've got now.
Of course, nobody wants that number to go down--article milestones are great PR. We've just celebrated 3mil, and it would be rough for the community to see 2.8mil tomorrow :)
-Chad
2009/8/20 Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se:
David Gerard wrote:
Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth?
I don't think it's an S-curve. I think we are seeing linear growth, with a few exceptions in the very early days (years). But hey, that's growth in the number of articles. We shouldn't focus on the number of articles, but on the overall usefulness. Day 1: Create article "Apple is a fruit". Day 2: Create article "Pear is a fruit". Day 3: Extend article about apples. Add photos. Cite sources. Day 3: Zero growth in the number of articles. Panic!!!
How about word count?
en:wp is currently estimated at about 1.6 BILLION WORDS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_in_volumes
"3 million articles", that somehow doesn't sound as big as A BILLION WORDS. Can you wrap your head around what A BILLION WORDS actually means, how big that really is?
(For comparison: Tolkien's 'Lord Of The Rings' is about 470,000 words; Proust's 'À la recherche du temps perdu' is about 9 million words.)
- d.
Hoi, For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over 260 projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important things that are happening.
I would be interested in more study looking at the "other" wikipedias. This is where all kinds of other phenomena exist.
pl wiki:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WWM#Raporty_badawcze.2C_publikacje_na...
przykuta
My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia as a whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English Wikipedia's growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of standard encyclopaedic information in the other projects. This in turn will bring up many subjects that en.wp does not cover. The existence of articles on subjects not covered in en.wp are indicative of a bias and once en.wp starts to cover these subjects it will improve its neutral point of view.. Consequently ALL our Wikipedias including en.wp will benefit from research on the "other" Wikipedias. Thanks, GerardM _
I would guess that the most important reason why english wikipedia is slowing down is because of the other language projects gets the attention of the editors. perhaps it would be possible to get some numbers on the total influx of content and how it is distributed among the projects?
John
2009/8/16 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I would guess that the most important reason why english wikipedia is slowing down is because of the other language projects gets the attention of the editors. perhaps it would be possible to get some numbers on the total influx of content and how it is distributed among the projects?
Many (particularly, as I recall, Andrew Lih) were saying a few years ago that en:wp growth would follow a sigmoid logistic curve rather than the pure exponential curve it appeared to be following at the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_curve
- much as most other things do.
So I wouldn't call it unexpected.
The question is then where other Wikipedias are on this curve.
- d.
2009/8/16 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
I would guess that the most important reason why english wikipedia is slowing down is because of the other language projects gets the attention of the editors. perhaps it would be possible to get some numbers on the total influx of content and how it is distributed among the projects?
Many (particularly, as I recall, Andrew Lih) were saying a few years ago that en:wp growth would follow a sigmoid logistic curve rather than the pure exponential curve it appeared to be following at the time:
This would be true if it were not for continual creation of novelties which will justify creation of new articles. Only if obsolete subjects are deleted at the same rate would the encyclopedia cease to slowly grow. A graph of the number of articles will not flatten as a standard logistic sigmoid function does.
Fred
I would guess that the most important reason why english wikipedia is slowing down is because of the other language projects gets the attention of the editors. perhaps it would be possible to get some numbers on the total influx of content and how it is distributed among the projects?
John
Hmm, look at Σ
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org