Significant material is sometimes excluded from some articles on the
grounds of undue weight. Can someone clarify whether the policy on
NPOV Undue weight is being misinterpreted, and if so, whether it can
be clarified?
NPOV Undue weight states:
* "... the article should fairly represent all significant
viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight
But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
significance? The policy goes on to say:
* "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or
to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape
of the dispute."
In other words, the mere mention of a significant-minority view may
be misleading, not whether we write that text in a neutral point of view?
But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:
* Editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject
in an unfair way [.. by] Entirely omitting significant citable
information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it
is claimed to be not credible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
I have examples of material being excluded from several articles on
the grounds of Undue weight, though the material is peer-reviewed,
citable and verifiable. In some cases, there are dozens of citations.
The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from credible,
career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other official
policy)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers are left to form
their own opinions" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View ]
I'd like to see a clarification that significant minority views, in
which prominent adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
authors), should not be excluded from an article on the grounds of
undue weight; their views may be summarised, though detailed in an
article of their own.
Examples on request.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
>And rightly so. It's a small minority position, and has its own
>article. The correct way to handle it in such a more general article
>would be to have a one-line statement that plasma cosmology would
>solve the problem, and lead people who would like to know more about
>the subject to the plasma cosmology page. This is exactly the kind of
>thing that undue weight is talking about.
I agree, except that the one line has been COMPLETELY removed, so
that people can not find out if the theory exists.
>It's very simple: If you get a consensus against you, it probably
>means that you are wrong. You cannot push your own POV just by writing
>about it in an NPOV way.
Verifiable information is NOT "my" point of view, so I can't push it
as my own. Otherwise removing verifiable information would be
construed as the opposing POV, and neither are acceptable.
>I think your example is a good example of why I oppose to those who
>say that anything for which there are citations should be included.
>Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people pushing theories.
Surely behind every theory is someone "pushing"? Isn't an editor's
job merely to describe what they are?
>And arguing
>that your statements are perfectly NPOV and referenced is simply
>barking up the wrong tree. There's no reason to put the material where
>you want to put it.
Where else should I expect to find out about the existence of such
theories, if I hadn't heard about it before?
A line or two mentioning that there is an alternative theory, and a
very brief summary is not unreasonable.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
For those that are interested, as an example of an article where I
feel that significant material is being excluded on the grounds of
undue weight (and other pretenses), I would point people to an
article on "The Galaxy rotation problem".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem
A request for comments appears
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_rotation_problem (see
the section RfC: The Galaxy rotation problem: Alternative theories).
I had already suggested text (see link in RfC introduction) that was
subsequently removed. Verification can be found in the following
subsection, Results.
This is typical of many articles where "alternative views" are being
completely removed.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
Hi,
I compared MediaWiki's category system and its usage in Wikipedia with
traditional classfication and collaborative tagging. In my impression of
discussion about categories people confuse a lot so maybe my paper can
help a bit (or confuse you even more - it's scientific ;-)
http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0604036http://wm.sieheauch.de/?p=35
Greetings,
Jakob
At 20:20 09/04/2006, you wrote:
>I would say that the vast majority of people who abuse it are people
>with an agenda.
>
>The point of it is so that we don't have pages and pages of Alex Chiu
>crap in [[immortality]] and [[teleportation]] and the like, or two
>entire books full of "how to goodbye depression" and "internal fenix"
>(sic) crap in the [[Eric Castenada]] article.
>
>The point is not so that we don't have two sentences about Flat
>Earthers or so that we don't have two sentences about people who
>believe GWB sucks.
I agree with all of this, but nevertheless, editors are citing undue
weight and that information should be presented in the "proportion to
the prominence of each". And this is in relation to little-known
verifiable peer-reviewed papers.
I've been through every dispute resolution processes, consensus falls
behind one another and tells me I'm wrong; the administrators notice
board say they can handle only 3RR and vandalism. The mediation cabal
talks reason, but can't make a decision, and the arbitration
committee tell me its a contents dispute.
I can't even get policy clarified as certain editors are content with
the current wording.
What's my next course of action? I personally believe that the
addition of one sentence of clarification in the Undue weight section
of NPOV would solve the issue.
Regards,
Ian
>Mark
>
>On 09/04/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
> > This is an on-going problem. It is done both by those who
> > misunderstand the policy and by those with a point of view agenda.
> > The only reasonable recourse is to patiently discuss the policy. I'm
> > not sure the section on undue weight could be made any clearer. If
> > you are unable to negotiate successfully with those who have a point
> > of view agenda please use the dispute resolution procedure. Please
> > don't edit war with them.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > On Apr 9, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
> >
> > > Significant material is sometimes excluded from some articles on the
> > > grounds of undue weight. Can someone clarify whether the policy on
> > > NPOV Undue weight is being misinterpreted, and if so, whether it can
> > > be clarified?
> > >
> > > NPOV Undue weight states:
> > >
> > > * "... the article should fairly represent all significant
> > > viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". See
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight
> > >
> > > But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
> > > rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
> > > significance? The policy goes on to say:
> > >
> > > * "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or
> > > to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape
> > > of the dispute."
> > >
> > > In other words, the mere mention of a significant-minority view may
> > > be misleading, not whether we write that text in a neutral point of
> > > view?
> > >
> > > But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:
> > >
> > > * Editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject
> > > in an unfair way [.. by] Entirely omitting significant citable
> > > information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it
> > > is claimed to be not credible.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have examples of material being excluded from several articles on
> > > the grounds of Undue weight, though the material is peer-reviewed,
> > > citable and verifiable. In some cases, there are dozens of citations.
> > >
> > > The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
> > > consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from credible,
> > > career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other official
> > > policy)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers are left to form
> > > their own opinions" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > Neutral_Point_of_View ]
> > >
> > > I'd like to see a clarification that significant minority views, in
> > > which prominent adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
> > > authors), should not be excluded from an article on the grounds of
> > > undue weight; their views may be summarised, though detailed in an
> > > article of their own.
> > >
> > > Examples on request.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ian Tresman
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>--
>"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
At 09:59 10/04/2006, you wrote:
>My guess:
>
>You never will.
>
>Is it unfair? Yes. Do I think you should be able to? Yes.
>In all likelyhood, will it ever change? Nope.
Surely anything can change if there is the will. It is VERY simple. A
one line clarification in the NPOV Undue weight section.
Then editors can get on with editing, rather than policy-making decisions.
Regards,
Ian
>In short: I wish I could help you, but it's pretty much hopeless.
>
>Mark
>
>On 10/04/06, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Ask any Wikipedian if they've ever knowingly tried somehow or other to
> > >get a POV in Wikipedia. If they say no, they're lying or they haven't
> > >been around very long.
> >
> > Sure, we all like to put a "good spin" on our own points of view, and
> > begrudgingly moderate our views to fit into the neutral point of
> view style.
> >
> > But I'm talking about the wholesale exclusion of material on the
> > pretext of undue weight. I haven't even got as far as describing the
> > minority view, let alone doing so in an NPOV style.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > >Mark
> > >
> > >On 10/04/06, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > At 20:20 09/04/2006, you wrote:
> > > > >I would say that the vast majority of people who abuse it are people
> > > > >with an agenda.
> > > > >
> > > > >The point of it is so that we don't have pages and pages of Alex Chiu
> > > > >crap in [[immortality]] and [[teleportation]] and the like, or two
> > > > >entire books full of "how to goodbye depression" and "internal fenix"
> > > > >(sic) crap in the [[Eric Castenada]] article.
> > > > >
> > > > >The point is not so that we don't have two sentences about Flat
> > > > >Earthers or so that we don't have two sentences about people who
> > > > >believe GWB sucks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree with all of this, but nevertheless, editors are citing undue
> > > > weight and that information should be presented in the "proportion to
> > > > the prominence of each". And this is in relation to little-known
> > > > verifiable peer-reviewed papers.
> > > >
> > > > I've been through every dispute resolution processes, consensus falls
> > > > behind one another and tells me I'm wrong; the administrators notice
> > > > board say they can handle only 3RR and vandalism. The mediation cabal
> > > > talks reason, but can't make a decision, and the arbitration
> > > > committee tell me its a contents dispute.
> > > >
> > > > I can't even get policy clarified as certain editors are content with
> > > > the current wording.
> > > >
> > > > What's my next course of action? I personally believe that the
> > > > addition of one sentence of clarification in the Undue weight section
> > > > of NPOV would solve the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ian
> > > >
> > > > >Mark
> > > > >
> > > > >On 09/04/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
> > > > > > This is an on-going problem. It is done both by those who
> > > > > > misunderstand the policy and by those with a point of view agenda.
> > > > > > The only reasonable recourse is to patiently discuss the
> policy. I'm
> > > > > > not sure the section on undue weight could be made any clearer. If
> > > > > > you are unable to negotiate successfully with those who
> have a point
> > > > > > of view agenda please use the dispute resolution procedure. Please
> > > > > > don't edit war with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Apr 9, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Significant material is sometimes excluded from some
> articles on the
> > > > > > > grounds of undue weight. Can someone clarify whether
> the policy on
> > > > > > > NPOV Undue weight is being misinterpreted, and if so,
> whether it can
> > > > > > > be clarified?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NPOV Undue weight states:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * "... the article should fairly represent all
> significant
> > > > > > > viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". See
> > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
> > > > > > > rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
> > > > > > > significance? The policy goes on to say:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * "To give undue weight to a
> significant-minority view, or
> > > > > > > to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as
> to the shape
> > > > > > > of the dispute."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In other words, the mere mention of a
> significant-minority view may
> > > > > > > be misleading, not whether we write that text in a
> neutral point of
> > > > > > > view?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Editors may unwittingly or deliberately
> present a subject
> > > > > > > in an unfair way [.. by] Entirely omitting significant citable
> > > > > > > information in support of a minority view, with the
> argument that it
> > > > > > > is claimed to be not credible.
> > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have examples of material being excluded from several
> articles on
> > > > > > > the grounds of Undue weight, though the material is
> peer-reviewed,
> > > > > > > citable and verifiable. In some cases, there are dozens
> of citations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
> > > > > > > consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from credible,
> > > > > > > career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
> > > > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other official
> > > > > > > policy)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers
> are left to form
> > > > > > > their own opinions" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > > > > > Neutral_Point_of_View ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to see a clarification that significant
> minority views, in
> > > > > > > which prominent adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
> > > > > > > authors), should not be excluded from an article on the
> grounds of
> > > > > > > undue weight; their views may be summarised, though
> detailed in an
> > > > > > > article of their own.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Examples on request.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Ian Tresman
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > >Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > > > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > >Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>--
>"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi,
I recently noticed what a pain it can be to move image to commons,
especially with the image description. To help this issue, I now offer
this service:
http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/commonshelper.php
where you can enter the wikipedia language code and image name, and it
will generate a commons description consisting of link to original image
page, original contents, and wikified upload history.
It can also be called with the language/image as part of the URL:
http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/commonshelper.php?lang=de&doit=1&image=Str…
For German language, it will also translate several copyright template
names (e.g., "{{Bild-GFDL}}") into the the English (commons) version.
This can be expanded for other languages as well.
Magnus
>Ask any Wikipedian if they've ever knowingly tried somehow or other to
>get a POV in Wikipedia. If they say no, they're lying or they haven't
>been around very long.
Sure, we all like to put a "good spin" on our own points of view, and
begrudgingly moderate our views to fit into the neutral point of view style.
But I'm talking about the wholesale exclusion of material on the
pretext of undue weight. I haven't even got as far as describing the
minority view, let alone doing so in an NPOV style.
Regards,
Ian
>Mark
>
>On 10/04/06, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > At 20:20 09/04/2006, you wrote:
> > >I would say that the vast majority of people who abuse it are people
> > >with an agenda.
> > >
> > >The point of it is so that we don't have pages and pages of Alex Chiu
> > >crap in [[immortality]] and [[teleportation]] and the like, or two
> > >entire books full of "how to goodbye depression" and "internal fenix"
> > >(sic) crap in the [[Eric Castenada]] article.
> > >
> > >The point is not so that we don't have two sentences about Flat
> > >Earthers or so that we don't have two sentences about people who
> > >believe GWB sucks.
> >
> >
> > I agree with all of this, but nevertheless, editors are citing undue
> > weight and that information should be presented in the "proportion to
> > the prominence of each". And this is in relation to little-known
> > verifiable peer-reviewed papers.
> >
> > I've been through every dispute resolution processes, consensus falls
> > behind one another and tells me I'm wrong; the administrators notice
> > board say they can handle only 3RR and vandalism. The mediation cabal
> > talks reason, but can't make a decision, and the arbitration
> > committee tell me its a contents dispute.
> >
> > I can't even get policy clarified as certain editors are content with
> > the current wording.
> >
> > What's my next course of action? I personally believe that the
> > addition of one sentence of clarification in the Undue weight section
> > of NPOV would solve the issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian
> >
> > >Mark
> > >
> > >On 09/04/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
> > > > This is an on-going problem. It is done both by those who
> > > > misunderstand the policy and by those with a point of view agenda.
> > > > The only reasonable recourse is to patiently discuss the policy. I'm
> > > > not sure the section on undue weight could be made any clearer. If
> > > > you are unable to negotiate successfully with those who have a point
> > > > of view agenda please use the dispute resolution procedure. Please
> > > > don't edit war with them.
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 9, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Significant material is sometimes excluded from some articles on the
> > > > > grounds of undue weight. Can someone clarify whether the policy on
> > > > > NPOV Undue weight is being misinterpreted, and if so, whether it can
> > > > > be clarified?
> > > > >
> > > > > NPOV Undue weight states:
> > > > >
> > > > > * "... the article should fairly represent all significant
> > > > > viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". See
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight
> > > > >
> > > > > But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
> > > > > rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
> > > > > significance? The policy goes on to say:
> > > > >
> > > > > * "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or
> > > > > to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape
> > > > > of the dispute."
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, the mere mention of a significant-minority view may
> > > > > be misleading, not whether we write that text in a neutral point of
> > > > > view?
> > > > >
> > > > > But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject
> > > > > in an unfair way [.. by] Entirely omitting significant citable
> > > > > information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it
> > > > > is claimed to be not credible.
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have examples of material being excluded from several articles on
> > > > > the grounds of Undue weight, though the material is peer-reviewed,
> > > > > citable and verifiable. In some cases, there are dozens of citations.
> > > > >
> > > > > The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
> > > > > consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from credible,
> > > > > career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
> > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other official
> > > > > policy)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers are left to form
> > > > > their own opinions" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > > > Neutral_Point_of_View ]
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to see a clarification that significant minority views, in
> > > > > which prominent adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
> > > > > authors), should not be excluded from an article on the grounds of
> > > > > undue weight; their views may be summarised, though detailed in an
> > > > > article of their own.
> > > > >
> > > > > Examples on request.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Ian Tresman
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > >Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>--
>"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi everybody,
While it's sort of obvious, given the digital divide, that the number
of articles in Wikipedias is not proportional to the number of
speakers, for example Hindi has a much smaller number of articles
compared to speakers than most active Wikipedias; German has more.
However, something that people may not notice as much is the
incongruency between popularity of a particular language version and
the number of articles in that version.
The most visited Wikipedias, in order, are:
1 English (65%)
2 German (10%)
3 Japanese (6%)
4 Spanish (3%)
5 French (2%)
6 Polish (2%)
7 Chinese (2%)
8 Arabic (2%)
9 Italian (1%)
10 Hebrew (1%)
11 Turkish (1%)
12 Dutch (1%)
13 Portuguese (1%)
(all others combined total 1% of visits)
On the other hand, the list of Wikipedias ranked by number of articles is:
1 English (1048.7K)
2 German (376.9K)
3 French (261.1K)
4 Polish (223.8K)
5 Japanese (196.3K)
6 Dutch (156.9K)
...
8 Italian (146.8K)
9 Portuguese (123.8K)
10 Spanish (105.0K)
...
12 Chinese (61.48K)
...
17 Hebrew (34.35K)
...
29 Turkish (19.94K)
...
37 Arabic (12.03K)
What this says to me is that these Wikipedias are not attracting new
pages proportional to views when compared with other Wikipedias. This
may be because people don't want to write new pages, but it seems to
me more likely that people simply don't know they can.
How can this be fixed? Perhaps a site notice inviting people to write
quality pages or register, or a drive to recruit new Wikipedians from
the academic community.
Mark
--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
John M. Grohol at ALA writes about online communities, and refers a lot to
Wikipedia and provides "Six Steps to Better Online Community Through
Membership":
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/identitymatters
Probably interesting (though not uncontroversial) from a Wikipedia point of
view.
--
Markus Krötzsch
Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe
mak(a)aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ fax +49 (0)721 693 717
