On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
There is a project (even longer-running and slower-burning than the
ODNB) to construct a reference work covering all MPs, at least as much
as they're known, along with various other bits and pieces:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:54 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a *heck* of a lot still to be written.
On that topic, I came across this interesting essay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth
It tries to project to the year 2025!
On 16/02/2011, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I came across this interesting essay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth
It tries to project to the year 2025!
And fails spectacularly. The extended growth model seems pretty
inaccurate, very
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:03 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that judging a project with 3 million articles based on a
sample of just one article a great idea.
That was tongue-in-cheek, but a reminder to be wary of the state of an
article. I wonder whether the recent editing
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:33 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
We can establish a lower
bound since the Thomson-Gale's Biography Resource Center contains over
1,335,000 biographies.
The 2007 edition of the ODNB (British biographical history) has
50,113 biographical articles covering 54,922
On 15 February 2011 11:22, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:33 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
We can establish a lower
bound since the Thomson-Gale's Biography Resource Center contains over
1,335,000 biographies.
The 2007 edition of the ODNB
On 14/02/2011 22:31, WereSpielChequers wrote:
snip
If something like WYSIWYG
editing were to bring in a new wave of editors then the model would
break and it would be possible to think in terms of how many potential
articles qualify.
I think there is a point here. There are certainly a number
On 15 February 2011 04:33, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 February 2011 04:00, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, so I stop there. Even 40 million appears completely
unsupportable. It looks like it's off again by about another order of
magnitude.
Oh really?
Yeah,
On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable biographies???
Because that's what that page is assuming to calculate that 40 million.
On 15/02/2011, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable
biographies???
Because that's what that page
On 15 February 2011 04:00, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
I then checked the British biography 'Who's who'. They have about
30,000 entries, but that's only about 1 person in 2000 in Great
Britain, so even less.
This is actually quite an interesting angle to come at the problem
On 15 February 2011 18:17, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/02/2011, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
really, seriously, telling me we
On 15/02/2011 18:17, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 15/02/2011, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable
On 15 February 2011 20:18, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Arguably the answer is yes, back to the 16th century at least. There
has actually been quite a lot of havoc onsite over stub MP biographies
during the past year, but it transpires that there are pretty good
On 14/02/2011 03:35, Ian Woollard wrote:
I think you can't take the simple percentages of articles, a lot of
the most important and well visited articles are pretty well sorted,
whereas the stubs are mostly articles few people go to.
While this discussion is worth having, I wish to record a
I think Charles is right about this. There is a common conception, or
misconception, that stubship or start-class-ship is just a way station on
the way to articlehood. But some articles are probably destined to remain
short, or at least, can remain short without their
shortness reflecting poorly
I think not. There's a difference between a stub (which may not have
many or even any references at all) and a very short article.
Something can be a valid C-class, and still only be 2 or 3 paragraphs.
On 14/02/2011, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Charles is right about this.
True, but how well is the distinction understood by people who apply the
templates or rate the articles?
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
I think not. There's a difference between a stub (which may not have
many or even any references at
It would be nice if the consistency of the ratings were to improve
over time whilst the criteria remained the same, if that were to
happen we would be able to use this to monitor improvement over time.
But standards inflation has the better of us, that's why at
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:16:12 +
From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rating the English wikipedia
This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
This encyclopedia has been checked against the following criteria for
B-Class status:
snip
2
On 14 February 2011 20:04, FencesWindows
fences_and_wind...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met (currently 3.5 million
of an estimated 4.4 million articles)
You think there are only 4.4 million possible topics? Based on what
On 14 February 2011 20:04, FencesWindows
fences_and_wind...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:16:12 +
From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rating the English wikipedia
This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 February 2011 20:04, FencesWindows
fences_and_wind...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met (currently 3.5 million
of an estimated 4.4 million
On 14 February 2011 20:48, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I recall someone (Ray Saintonge?) working out there'd be at least 20
million, just going on placenames and politicians that are currently
in all the large
On 14 February 2011 20:48, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus/Wikipedia_interwiki_and_specialized_knowledge_test
I think that page is more a test of how good we are at interwiki
linking than anything else. The trend it shows is far too fast
There are two approaches to predicting the size of Wikipedia, one
based on working out how many articles would meet the general
notability guideline, the other charting how we have grown and
extrapolating the curve.
I'm not totally convinced at the 20 million theory based on articles
in different
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
I therefore award the Wikipedia class C:
I award it an F minus, based on using it to do some research today on
the topic of the Nebra sky disc (i.e. as a starting point to looking
elsewhere, but I was hoping that the
On 15 February 2011 01:17, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
I therefore award the Wikipedia class C:
I award it an F minus, based on using it to do some research today on
the topic of the Nebra sky disc
On 14/02/2011, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 February 2011 20:48, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus/Wikipedia_interwiki_and_specialized_knowledge_test
Oh rght. So back in 2006, Piotrus claims that
there
On 15 February 2011 04:00, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, so I stop there. Even 40 million appears completely
unsupportable. It looks like it's off again by about another order of
magnitude.
Oh really?
People have been keeping records for a long time. Western Europe has
This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
This encyclopedia has been checked against the following criteria for
B-Class status:
1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met (many common
articles are not adequately referenced)
2. Coverage and accuracy:
{{sofixit}} :)
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
This encyclopedia has been checked against the following criteria for
B-Class status:
1. Referencing and citation:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
I therefore award the Wikipedia class C:
Considering that 55% of articles are stubs and 21% are start awarding
Wikipedia a C overall is quite generous.
--
Brian Mingus
Graduate student
Computational Cognitive
I say it's start class at best.
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
I therefore award the Wikipedia class C:
Considering that 55% of articles are stubs and 21% are start
On 14/02/2011, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
{{sofixit}} :)
fixin' the Wikipedia - brb
--
-Ian Woollard
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Can we at least agree it's High-importance?
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
This encyclopedia has been checked against the following criteria for
B-Class
On 14/02/2011, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Considering that 55% of articles are stubs and 21% are start awarding
Wikipedia a C overall is quite generous.
I think you can't take the simple percentages of articles, a lot of
the most important and well visited articles are
I would think that percentages of FA/GA/A/B/C/Start/Stub with respect
to page hits would be much more illuminating.
Ooh, I'd like to see that. And to get a list of pages that are well
below par considering their popularity.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l
38 matches
Mail list logo
