On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/2009, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's looking to me like 3.5 million is about the plateau, since the
curve is
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/2009, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
As long as history doesn't come to an end, and new people keep getting
born and (annoyingly) becoming notable enough for a Wikipedia article,
there will always be a need for new articles.
Not to mention people's
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
As long as history doesn't come to an end, and new people keep getting
born and (annoyingly) becoming notable enough for a Wikipedia article,
there will always be a need for new articles.
2009/11/17 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
As long as history doesn't come to an end, and new people keep getting
born and (annoyingly) becoming notable enough for a Wikipedia
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:08 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
http://www.floatingsheep.org/2009/11/mapping-wikipedia.html
That is fascinating. Thanks for posting that link.
Gives us some idea where the gaps are but not to the extent you might
think (there are simply fewer citable
On 17/11/2009, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
As long as history doesn't come to an end, and new people keep getting
born and (annoyingly) becoming notable enough for a Wikipedia article,
there will always be a need for new articles.
Maybe, but I don't know how many. That level
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
The closest I've come to writing about things in other countries is here:
Aww, I'm a *much* better person than you:
New Zealand: Broken River, New Zealand, Craigieburn Valley, Fox Peak,
Invincible Snowfields, Mount
Indeed. Looking at this:
http://www.floatingsheep.org/2009/11/mapping-wikipedia.html
This is a similar mapping:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imageworld-artphp3.png
I think there is a huge number of notable topics that we have not yet
covered. Sure, there may be fewer sources about
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. Looking at this:
http://www.floatingsheep.org/2009/11/mapping-wikipedia.html
This is a similar mapping:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imageworld-artphp3.png
I think there is a huge number of notable
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is a huge number of notable topics that we have not yet
covered. Sure, there may be fewer sources about central Africa, but
what about China and South America? The areas most Wikipedians care
about are well
On 14/07/2009, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com
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*.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I have, interestingly, been noticing it moving in exactly the opposite
direction; articles with a couple of paragraphs of text, a reference
or two, an image or an infobox, being
G'day Charles,
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
I have, interestingly, been noticing it moving in exactly the opposite
direction; articles with a couple of paragraphs of text, a reference
or two, an image or an infobox, being marked as stubs.
2009/7/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I fear the first thing that would spring to the community's beautiful
collective mind would be a mass deletion of all stubs.
I have, interestingly, been noticing it moving in exactly the opposite
direction; articles with a couple of paragraphs of text,
Saturn's moon Triton; not my nomination. That delisting nomination was a
particularly bad example of two trends: FPC reviewers failing to read the
article for encyclopedic context, and the valued pictures program
functioning as a parasitic growth upon the FP program. VP ought to be
casting a
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I have, interestingly, been noticing it moving in exactly the opposite
direction; articles with a couple of paragraphs of text, a reference
or two, an image or an infobox, being marked as stubs. There's
standards
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
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
What a lot of churn. So the overall rate was merely +1 FA, +4 FL (and
also 3 topics and three images).
Is it always this bad?
My long-time observation is that the people who obsess about FA over
the long term want to
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-06/Features_and_admins
I couldn't help but notice:
* Five articles were promoted to featured status this week
* Four articles were delisted this week.
*
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
There are long-term stats somewhere, and they could be updated if you
asked. I suggest identifying which of the featured areas you want to
see long-term stats for, and asking at the relevant talk pages. An
2009/7/13 Matthew Brown mor...@gmail.com:
My long-time observation is that the people who obsess about FA over
the long term want to keep the number of articles with that status
approximately constant by making the standards more and more difficult
to meet.
Many have stated this directly on
- Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 13 July, 2009 03:29:06 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Featured churn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Andrew Turvey wrote:
- Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 13 July, 2009 03:29:06 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Featured churn
http
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I often wondered - what's the point of delisting? Surely if a previous
version of an article was good enough to be Featured, if the current version
isn't, you should just restore the one that was?
Or am I
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote:
My long-time observation is that the people who obsess about FA over
the long term want to keep the number of articles with that status
approximately constant by making the standards more and more difficult
to meet.
Yeah,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:.
Here's a great example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Face_of_a_Southern_Yellowjacket_Queen
What an incredible image. This is a *wasp*, and we have great detail
of the *hairs* on
2009/7/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:.
Here's a great example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Face_of_a_Southern_Yellowjacket_Queen
What an incredible image. This is a *wasp*, and we
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-06/Features_and_admins
I couldn't help but notice:
* Five articles were promoted to featured status this week
* Four articles were delisted this week.
* Twelve lists were promoted to featured status this week
* Eight lists were
46 matches
Mail list logo
