Erik Moeller wrote:
Why? The NOA is primarily interesting as a measure of
our collaborative
progress. This is important for ourselves and for others. Personally,
I've had several discussions about Wikipedia where I was reluctant to
cite the NOA because of the high number of machine-generated articles,
others probably feel the same.
I therefore believe we should generally exclude autogenerated articles
(we can change the wording on Main_Page to reflect this). As it would be
a 5 minute task for anyone with access to the db, is there any reason
not to do it?
The NOA is a highly unreliable figure for any purpose, and there has
been much discussion on reforming it.
If you think collaboration is the key, then a more general solution is
in order: only count article-space pages that have been edited at least
twice (and thus, have an old revision stored in the 'old' table).
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)