[Foundation-l] Priorities

[GerardM]

Hoi,
Apparantly we do not agree on what makes a project relevant. Yes, the
English language Wikipedia is relevant. The numbers prove it. However there
are metrics you do not consider like what the relevance of a project is for
a culture, the continued existence of a language. To me this transcends the
material metrics that you use.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 10/23/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/23/07, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/23/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > At the same time, though, the English language Wikipedia is by far the
> > > most successful project.
> > {{citation needed}}
>
> Define success?
>
> Viewership? Wikipedia size?  English Wikipedia wins the simple
> objective criteria like that hands down.
>
> In September, En.wikipedia got 3,980,356,000 page views while JP had
> 767,759,000, De 559,142,000, Es 357,520,000, Fr 241,531,000.
>
> En also has the most world-wide representation:
> http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org/wikipedia-viewer-matrix.html
>
> Quality? Free Content? Coverage in certain knowledge domains? Harder
> to measure, and I'd accept an argument that some other projects might
> be able to claim the crown on some of these ... but Anthony said:
>
> > Of course it's going to dominate interviews
> > and presentations and news and discussions.  These are things the
> > foundation couldn't control even if it wanted to.  And surely the
> > English language Wikipedia generates the most revenue.  As a result,
> > shouldn't it be entitled to spend an equivalent portion of that
> > revenue?
>
> Sounds likey that viewership is the right metric for his argument. You
> shouldn't even need to ask for a citation for that one.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>