Hi,
The comma count doesn't make sense to me. I would suggest size with a threshold of 100 bytes, or even
200 bytes.
We should not set the threshold arbitrary. Needless to say, the size of an article indicates nothing about the usefulness of the article. So does the comma. Actually in this point, Brion's idea is clever, which seems the most fair among other suggestions.
Takuya Murata wrote:
Hi,
The comma count doesn't make sense to me. I would suggest size with a threshold of 100 bytes, or even
200 bytes. We should not set the threshold arbitrary. Needless to say, the size of an article indicates nothing about the usefulness of the article. So does the comma.
I think Brion's idea is good. The counting of articles can't be done by commas or by finding the minimum number of bytes you need for a good article. Why not do it the other way? Count them all which are not empty, remove the redirects and the only 'non articles' remaining should be lists etc. Why not 'mark' them? Lets add a #DONTCOUNT and every author, admin, or maintainer can simple remove lists etc. from the count by adding this mark. And which pages are removed can be decided by each wiki for itself.
yust my 2 cents
Smurf
From: "Thomas Corell" T.Corell@t-online.de
Why not do it the other way? Count them all which are not empty, remove the redirects and the only 'non articles' remaining should be lists etc. Why not 'mark' them? Lets add a #DONTCOUNT and every author, admin, or maintainer can simple remove lists etc. from the count by adding this
mark.
And which pages are removed can be decided by each wiki for itself.
I'd like to be able to put a #DONTCOUNT on the Interlingua, and other, wordlists so as to give a fair accounting of the number of pages that are acctually articles instead of wordlists. This would be helpful.
Cheers, Jay B.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org