[WikiEN-l] Rating the English wikipedia

[geni]

On 15 February 2011 18:17, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/02/2011, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
>>> really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable
>>> biographies???
>>> Because that's what that page is assuming to calculate that 40 million.
>>
>> It's possible. Our coverage of say British MPs starts to fall apart
>> pre-20th century.
>
> But should each MP necessarily have his own biography?
>
>>> It's not impossible to calculate, you look at the counts from an
>>> encyclopedias of famous people. And they very typically list historical
>>> people as well as living people.
>>
>> But they all hit dead tree limitations.
>
> Then they're not capable of being reliably sourced.

Of course they are. It's just the sources are things other than
encyclopedias of famous people



> Only if they're notable, and reliably sourced. I don't think they're
> notable enough to have their own article simply for having played.

In practice yes they are. Local newspapers tend to use their local
sports teams as filler.


> So you're saying that you don't know; and it's not a lot of use is it?

No I'm saying it wasn't possible to know. You were the one who claimed it was.

-- 
geni