On 21 January 2015 at 10:20, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote: > If you just need ballpark numbers, the proposed approach might work. If you > want to produce something concretely usable, it's going to be much more > complex: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Measuring_mission_success > > In particular, 100k is a ridiculous number and restricting yourself to > Wikipedia means for many languages you'll lose the most important content > people are looking for, e.g. on Wiktionary and Wikisource (dictionaries, > original literature and official documents in that language).
I'm not sure I'd go for "most important", but yes, I agree - an aggregated total of xx.wikisource, xx.wikipedia, xx.wiktionary, xx.wikibooks might well be useful. > Abdel Samad, Rawia, 21/01/2015 09:47: >> >> ·We are currently using the article count by language based on >> Wikimedia’s foundation public link: Source: >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias. Is this a reliable >> source for article count – does it include stubs? > > 0) You'd better use its source, http://wikistats.wmflabs.org/, > 1) which is as reliable as Special:Statistics is, i.e. not so much; > 2) and uses the official https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Article_count > definition, as stats.wikimedia.org (now) does, > 3) calling "good" and "stub" what is now called "countable" and > "non-countable". ...agh, so wikistats.wmflabs.org uses a completely different definition of 'stub' to the one we use on the wikis? One more source of confusion :-) >> ·What are the biggest drivers you’ve seen for step change in the number >> of articles (e.g., number of active admins, machine translation, etc.) > > Bot imports, clearly. The number of articles is an extremely poor metric for > measuring "coverage". Agreed. > Andrew Gray, 21/01/2015 10:18: >> This uses a definition of "article count" which is a little more >> generous, and counts all pages in the main namespace. > > It doesn't. > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Search/Analytics/Metrics_definitions You're quite right - I'd misremembered and then been lulled into a false sense of confirmation by Wikistats being larger :-) Is it fair to say that: a) both Wikistats and the on-wiki Special:Statistics use the same article-count measure (ns0, one outbound link/category, not a redirect); b) for various reasons these two sources for the data don't always line up; c) but all told, it's as good a measure as we have Andrew. -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
