100% true. Just compound words in german may make a great difference towards
English, in piemontese we thousands of 'L L' n' 'n that would count as
words
and are but pronominal particles, plus we usually say everything twice
(double subject, double locatives, etc).
Quantitative methods are hardly going to help in such cases.
Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:52 PM
To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Quality vs Quantity
One way to encourage longer articles would be to rank
languages on
the
www.wikipedia.org front page by word count (or perhaps byte
count) rather than article count. According to [1] the Chinese
Wikipedia has 50.6 M words in March 2007 and the Russian has 47.1
M words, compared to the Swedish Wikipedia's 36.2 M words.
Changing the ranking of the Swedish one from 9th to 11th would
send a clear message to the stub-happy swedes.
The amount of information in each word varies from language to
language, so that doesn't work too well. It works for comparing
similar languages, but Chinese and Swedish could end up having very
different numbers of words for exactly the same content.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l