Although page depth was not really connected with the current
trend, Personally, I think page depth is *no longer a reliable* metric for
comparison, here is why I think so.
Assamese Wikipedia ( 312 articles) : page depth is 339 .
Sindi ( 355 articles): 381
Compare this with
Bengali ( 22,062 articles) : 374
Malayalam ( 16,414 articles) : 320
It is self-explanatory...
Technically 1 million edits is a cute milestone ( congrats to ml wiki) to
take notice, but we cannot consider it as real metric for comparison among
Wikipedias. There are language Wikipedias where Google translation/Machine
translations or bot created articles are banned or controlled tightly. There
are Wikipedias, where they have a free run. Please note that I am not saying
taht they are either good or bad. There are Wikipedias where constant
updation of articles happening, due a vibrant Wikicommunity. There are
Wikipedians who like to work on the articles offline and then bring it live
with a single edit.
Having said that, it is advisable to do what each community feels best for
their language Wikipedia. Of course, it is good to have an healthy
competition :)
But everybody, please do continue to report such interesting milestones and
statistics. We all love that...
-Tinu Cherian
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Shiju Alex <shijualexonline(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
We have users in Tamil Wikipedia who bulk upload 100s
of complete articles
they wrote offline with just one edit per
article.
That happens in all the wikipedias which has an active community. That
might also be possible with the the Google translation project.
In general, quality of a wiki article improves as more people work on it.
More edits from more number of users means more quality on the wiki article.
Otherwise there is no difference between a knol/blogpost and a wiki article.
:)
*"Depths above 300 for
Wikipedias<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#Notes>be… 100 000
articles have been automatically dismissed as irrelevant."
*
Who has mentioned about the depth in the below mail?
When we focus on number of articles, some end up creating useless stubs.
The same should not happen when we focus on edit
counts.
Yes. All wikis has stubs and almost of the articles are created as stub
articles.
Shiju
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Ravishankar <ravidreams(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
> Its not just about stubs.
> We have users in Tamil Wikipedia who
bulk upload 100s of complete articles
> they wrote offline with just one edit per article. One great article can be
> uploaded in one click and one mediocre article can have 100s of edits.
> According to
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias
> *"Depths above 300 for
Wikipedias<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#Notes>be… 100 000
articles have been automatically dismissed as irrelevant."
> *
> When we focus on number of articles, some end up creating useless stubs.
The same should not happen when we focus on edit
counts.
> Ravi
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:18
AM, CherianTinu Abraham <
> tinucherian(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> What probably Arjuna meant was
that, some of Wikipedias are more
>> welcoming to the creation of stub articles. I am not saying that Malayalam
>> Wikipedia doesn't though...
>
>> -Tinu Cherian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l