[Foundation-l] It's not article count, it's editors

[Erik Zachte]

Gregory Maxwell:

> The reason "how we have not reached large parts of the world yet" is 

> because access to Wikipedia is significantly influenced by things 

> outside of Wikimedia's control and scope.

 

> I think a reasonable argument can be made that Wikimedia's actions 

> could not produce a statistically significant improvement in the 

> penetration vs population metric; simply because the causative factors 

> outside of our ability to influence are so large.

 

Here we totally disagree, and I hope and expect the outcomes of the strategy
process will prove you wrong over time.

I am not saying it is easy to reach out where we have not done so yet, but
we overcame more hurdles. 

 

> but perhaps I did not state this bluntly enough:  

 

You usually have no problems with being blunt (and obfuscating your posts
with rather pointless sarcasms) That was me being blunt BTW

 

> Failure to consider this leads to bizarre conclusions like "the lower 

> birth rates in the developed world compared to the developing world 

> decrease Wikimedia's success over time".

 

QED

 

> Surely someone must have a respectable count of internet users by 

> language that we could use for comparison?

 

Thanks in advance for pointing me there. 

 

> If we had a goal to double the number of articles in some reasonable 

> period of time we could do it. If we had a goal to double the 

> penetration, ... well, unless the WMF changes its mission nothing it 

> could do would get us there.

 

Please check mission statement

 

Erik Zachte