Ian Woollard wrote:
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose, and
they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality, reliable
sourcing, brilliant prose, etc.
That's exactly the kind of thing
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge:
I wouldn't be too concerned about it either. This is a volunteer project
so, unlike with the folks at EB, nobody's livelihood depends on it.
That's not entirely true. Very few people's livelihoods depends on it,
but we do have some paid
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge:
I wouldn't be too concerned about it either. This is a volunteer project
so, unlike with the folks at EB, nobody's livelihood depends on it.
That's not entirely true. Very few people's livelihoods
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge:
That's not entirely true. Very few people's livelihoods depends on it,
but we do have some paid staff.
I'm glad to see you took the bait. :-)
Does the
2009/4/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
Presumably the wikipedia can find out what proportion of its traffic
actually comes from China, and compare that with the Alexa statistics.
If they're close then it gives some evidence that Alexa
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Been around for a while. I was expecting it to overtake en this year
but not this soon. Would be interesting to know how they beat out
Baidu Baike.
It's not surprising that a gang of unilingual Anglos wouldn't notice a
Chinese language
2009/4/22 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
So this would suggest that zhwp, at a very rough estimate, gets about
0.5% to 0.25% of the traffic that enwp does.
And Alexa says it gets 1.1% of Wikipedia traffic and enwiki gets
54.0%. That means zhwiki gets 0.02% the traffic of enwiki. So the
From my limited checking, most of the text and images on Hudong seems
to be copied from other websites: news sites, government sites, the
official site of the subject, etc.
They have managed to make an interesting user interface though, a
working WYSIWYG wiki.
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose, and
they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality, reliable
sourcing, brilliant prose, etc.
That's exactly the kind of thing that
It seems the moderator ate the text of my message.
From my limited checking, most of the text and images on Hudong seems
to be copied from other websites: news sites, government sites, the
official site of the subject, etc.
They have managed to make an interesting user interface though, a
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems the moderator ate the text of my message.
It got through to me first time.
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose,
and
they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:13:46 +0200, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Ian Woollard
ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very
loose,
2009/4/21 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
Exactly what I thought. Better integration and support for wikiprojects
(have to say, I sort of prefer task groups as a name...), better
recognition on the wiki of top contributors to various articles -- those are
things we could really learn from. And if we
2009/4/21 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
Exactly what I thought. Better integration and support for wikiprojects
(have to say, I sort of prefer task groups as a name...), better
recognition on the wiki of top contributors to various articles -- those are
things we could really learn from.
So far as I can tell from percentage breakdowns by country in Alexa,
the Chinese go to hudong and zh.wikipedia.org equally often- virtually
the same number of page hits. However, hudong ranks 112 and
wikipedia.org ranks 66 in China, which tells you that a lot of people
are reading the other
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
So far as I can tell from percentage breakdowns by country in Alexa,
the Chinese go to hudong and zh.wikipedia.org equally often- virtually
the same number of page hits. However, hudong ranks 112 and
wikipedia.org ranks 66 in China, which tells
Presumably the wikipedia can find out what proportion of its traffic
actually comes from China, and compare that with the Alexa statistics.
If they're close then it gives some evidence that Alexa have enough
toolbars out in the wild in China to give reasonable accuracy.
On 21/04/2009, David
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
Presumably the wikipedia can find out what proportion of its traffic
actually comes from China, and compare that with the Alexa statistics.
If they're close then it gives some evidence that Alexa have enough
toolbars out in the wild in China to
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
(We're #4 on comScore because comScore aggregates different sites from
the same company, but Alexa does it strictly by domain name, e.g.
listing Google and YouTube separately.)
For those interested in our comScore
Hudong.com is now bigger than us:
http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=139049_0_5_0_M
In fact they may have broken 3 million but I can't read
全球最大中文百科由全球1,016,360位网民共同编写而成。共计3,050,203词条，32.7亿文字
and I'm not totally certain their definition of article is the same as
ours. Still I think
Yeah:
total of 3,050,203 entries, 3,270,000,000 words.
If the translation service I just used is giving me an accurate feel,
it seems a bit more facile than the wikipedia right now, and even less
well referenced and less accurate. But it's got more articles, and
it's still pretty new.
The Alexa
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:51:59 +0200, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Hudong.com is now bigger than us:
http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=139049_0_5_0_M
In fact they may have broken 3 million but I can't read
全球最大中文百科由全球1,016,360位网民共同编写而成。共计3,050,203词条，32.7亿文字
and I'm not totally
what fluff they have marked as articles, because their category
on wildlife is quite threadbare:
http://www.hudong.com/categoryalldocs/%E8%87%AA%E7%84%B6%E7%94%9F%E7%89%A9/
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] We've been overtaken
24 matches
Mail list logo
