On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Liam Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/09/2011, at 23:04, emijrp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The interesting thing here is, 4.8M unique red links in 2009, and unique >> 5.6M red links in 2011. *The more articles are created, the more articles >> are missing*. >> > Along those lines, I recall seeing (at least three years ago) some research > that said the proportion of redlinks was remaining stable even as the number > of articles grew. They hypothesised that if the proportion decreased then > that would imply that we would eventually stop and "finish" the encyclopedia. > And on the other hand if the proportion of redlinks increased that it would > imply that the project would eventually decay through too much entropy. > Instead of the two extremes the research said that, a bit like goldilocks, > the growth was "just right" and could continue indefinitely. Does anyone else > remember this research or it's name/author?
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378720 Spinellis/Louridas, "The collaborative organization of knowledge", complemented in http://www.spinellis.gr/blog/20080808/ and summarized in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-11/Growth_study -- Tilman Bayer Movement Communications Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
