2009/7/14 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
I think you're probably right that a new departure needs to be made:
we're at best mediocre at devising new recognition mechanisms. How
about a project aimed (since we are coming up to three million articles)
at shifting the balance
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/14 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
I think you're probably right that a new departure needs to be made:
we're at best mediocre at devising new recognition mechanisms. How
about a project aimed (since we are coming up to three million articles)
On 14/07/2009, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I do spend more time on upgrading stubs than I used to, and I guess this
will be true of anyone who is driven by what they find on the site. When
we last discussed total article numbers, four million seemed a good
enough
Ian Woollard wrote:
It's looking to me like 3.5 million is about the plateau, since the
curve is bang on that, but we might make 4 million *eventually*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth#Logistic_model_for_growth_in_article_count_of_Wikipedia
We'll know
2009/7/14 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Ian Woollard wrote:
It's looking to me like 3.5 million is about the plateau, since the
curve is bang on that, but we might make 4 million *eventually*.
2009/7/14 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
I don't see any evidence for an asymptote at all yet.
We're only about ~1300 per day now, and the trend is clearly
downwards, on a *log* graph of *percentage* growth against time it's a
straightish line downwards, and the size of the wiki seems
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/14 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
I don't see any evidence for an asymptote at all yet.
We're only about ~1300 per day now, and the trend is clearly
downwards, on a *log* graph of *percentage* growth against
2009/7/14 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Are you saying the numbers could go negative?? Contraction in real-terms? :-/
Carcharoth
It's happened at least once. Long term it would be unlikely since most
deletions are of new articles.
--
geni
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:50 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a question: how many articles are created and deleted within 24 hours?
In early 2007, I did a quick and dirty estimate that about 2400
articles were deleted per day, at a time when the net gain per day was
around
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/14 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Are you saying the numbers could go negative?? Contraction in real-terms? :-/
Carcharoth
It's happened at least once. Long term it would be unlikely since most
deletions are of
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/14 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Are you saying the numbers could go negative?? Contraction in real-terms? :-/
Carcharoth
It's happened at least once. Long term it would be unlikely since most
deletions are of
2009/7/14 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/14 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Are you saying the numbers could go negative?? Contraction in real-terms?
:-/
Carcharoth
It's happened at least once. Long term
geni wrote:
We'll know more around the beginning of 2010. In my view something is
likely to change in the direction of people valuing lists of missing
articles more, when it is clearer that drive-by creation is getting
drossier by the month (which is what that model implies). Of course I
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Sage Rossragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/14 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Are you saying the
sineWAVE wrote:
Redlinks are likely to be a poor estimate of numbers of missing
articles anyway. Some will be to articles that would be non-notable,
and redlinks tend to be removed - in other words links that would be
present if we had the article aren't there as redlinks.
Who are these
Ian Woollard wrote:
If it does finally plateau half the days will be negative of course;
and they'll become more common before we reach the plateau just due to
randomness. But if we start having negative weeks, stick a fork in
her, she's probably done!
Do we have any plans for when we'll be
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jaranda/Wikipedia%27s_first_IRC_chat
Took me long enough to find it! And it wasn't what I thought it was.
No deletionism or inclusionism jokes there.
Maybe you were thinking of the
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jaranda/Wikipedia%27s_first_IRC_chat
Took me long enough to find it! And it wasn't what I thought it was.
No
18 matches
Mail list logo
