Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thank you for quoting out of context.

This is a quote to get the context: " However when a list like a Wikipedia
category of alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new
errors introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the
errors that already exist in a Wikipedia".

My reality is that I have imported masses of people with awards and
categories with people who are staff or alumni of universities. I have
observed the issues that I described, I have blogged about it. My reality
is that I make errors like everyone else. Because of this, when I import
data from a category, I have learned to check the first entry and see if it
created the expected statement. The start of this process are statements on
the item for the category indicating what it contains. This allows later
processes to be done fully automated by a bot.

Given that we include data from many Wikipedias, information from ORCID, we
know about more people with articles in any Wikipedia that went to those
universities for study or work. It means that we can, if a "community"
allows for it, add those people to Wikipedia categories.

NB I have blogged about this for years now. People seem not to be
interested in context [1].

However, both Wikipedias, Wikidata get it wrong. My argument, my point is
that when we do work together, we get the facts straight for the subjects
that are under consideration. The notion that Wikidata is done importing
from sources is a fallacy. We are not ready for consolidation, most items
are incomplete, often impossible to disambiguate and we are stuck with
Wikipedia think that prevents us from seeing a bigger picture. The bigger
picture is that the "sum of all knowledge" is not in articles nor in items.
It is in how we bring things together.
Thanks,
 GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 22:34, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a
> Wikipedia,"
>
> That's rather far from being correct. I already indicated one form of
> error, caused by erroneous scraping by bot from an external data set.  And
> to the extent that information is inserted by humans from whatever sources,
> that is subject to error too.  And less checkable as Wikidata does not
> reference sources directly as does Wikipedia.
>
> JPS
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than
> > any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it
> > has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its
> quality
> > and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have
> issues.
> > All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things
> are
> > the same.
> >
> > The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy
> > because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so
> much
> > with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the
> > entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of
> > disambiguation..  For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at
> > least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is
> > among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at
> > Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when
> > Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).
> >
> > When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as
> > well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an
> error
> > rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category
> of
> > alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors
> > introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors
> > that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation
> > processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we
> could
> > synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import
> > authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A
> > consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all
> Wikipedias
> > who take an interest.
> >
> > In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language
> > they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of
> > what a Wikipedia has to offer.
> >
> > So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is
> room
> > for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about
> > sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and
> > not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen 
> wrote:
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:50 PM Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada 
wrote:

> This is the escape velocity, I think that Wikipedia will never surpass
> Wikidata again.
>
> The singularity is near.
>

Hey Emilio!
Or, it passed us a while ago, but so quickly that we're only now noticing
it.

///S
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

The code may always be written and and often reviewed by humans but the
data clearly is not.  There was an instance recently of a bot adding an
incorrect date of birth of 1950 to thousands of entries due to a
misunderstanding (by its human author) about VIAF file formats

JPS

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:51 AM Caroline Becker 
wrote:

> But... bots are operated, written, and reviewed by real humans ? Like if I
> spend 2 hours adding "painting by Vincent van Gogh" manually on every
> relevant item by hand, how is that more valuable than spending 20 minutes
> to write a bot that does that for me (and can be used for similar tasks) ?
>
> Caroline
>
>
> Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 10:45, Gabriel Thullen  a
> écrit :
>
> > Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
> > Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots
> than
> > by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
> > few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
> > on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity
> of
> > anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
> > of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
> > was a spike of bot activity.
> > We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor
> which
> > appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
> > (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots).
> Quite
> > a difference.
> > The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and
> curate
> > the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
> > bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
> > being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
> > "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
> >
> > Best regards
> > Gabe
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan <
> > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is a good news.
> > >
> > > Cheers!!!
> > >
> > > Olaniyan Olushola
> > > CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
> > > President, Wikimedia Nigeria
> > > Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
> > > Co-director Wiki Women Radio
> > > www.wikimedia.org.ng
> > > sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
> > > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
> > > +2348167352512
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk  > >
> > > > Hello Ariel Glenn,
> > > > Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> > > > making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
> > on
> > > > Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> > > > congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
> > Wikidata...
> > > > > HU
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >   GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number
> of
> > > > > > revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was
> tipped
> > > off
> > > > > by a
> > > > > > tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
> > > > displays
> > > > > > the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
> > > > > Wikidata
> > > > > > overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > > > www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > > > en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> > > > > > Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is
> 888629401
> > > > > > 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have a nice day!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ariel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

"All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a
Wikipedia,"

That's rather far from being correct. I already indicated one form of
error, caused by erroneous scraping by bot from an external data set.  And
to the extent that information is inserted by humans from whatever sources,
that is subject to error too.  And less checkable as Wikidata does not
reference sources directly as does Wikipedia.

JPS

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than
> any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it
> has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its quality
> and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have issues.
> All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things are
> the same.
>
> The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy
> because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so much
> with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the
> entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of
> disambiguation..  For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at
> least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is
> among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at
> Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when
> Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).
>
> When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as
> well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an error
> rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category of
> alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors
> introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors
> that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation
> processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we could
> synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import
> authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A
> consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all Wikipedias
> who take an interest.
>
> In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language
> they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of
> what a Wikipedia has to offer.
>
> So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is room
> for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about
> sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and
> not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen  wrote:
>
> > Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
> > Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots
> than
> > by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
> > few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
> > on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity
> of
> > anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
> > of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
> > was a spike of bot activity.
> > We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor
> which
> > appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
> > (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots).
> Quite
> > a difference.
> > The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and
> curate
> > the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
> > bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
> > being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
> > "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
> >
> > Best regards
> > Gabe
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan <
> > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is a good news.
> > >
> > > Cheers!!!
> > >
> > > Olaniyan Olushola
> > > CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
> > > President, Wikimedia Nigeria
> > > Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
> > > Co-director Wiki Women Radio
> > > www.wikimedia.org.ng
> > > sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
> > > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
> > > +2348167352512
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk  > >
> > > > Hello Ariel Glenn,
> > > > Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> > > > making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
> > on
> > > > Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> > > > congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Emilio J . Rodríguez-Posada]

El mié., 20 mar. 2019 a las 7:48, Ariel Glenn WMF ()
escribió:

> Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
>
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
> 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
>
>
This is the escape velocity, I think that Wikipedia will never surpass
Wikidata again.

The singularity is near.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Anders Wennersten]

In my experience we are now leaving Phase one of filling Wikidata with 
basic data.


This first phase involved many botcreated items and wellmeaning 
semi-manual mass updates. This has resulted in many problems. Bots that 
is filling wrong Item,  with same name but a different object, creating 
mess. Bot update that put in deathdates from a list of retirement dates 
creating a lot of angriness as it showed in Google search a lot of 
living persons being dead. And a lot of bewildering "Intance of"


Our reaction to this is that we are now putting a major effort to 
manually go through important classes of WD items in order to enter 
correct data, specially "Instance of". This in order to correct  and 
stop erroneous data to be entered from now on. It also give a big 
advantage as fact control on datasets is much easier done by using 
Wikdata. Also after base data is correct, make mass updates and 
correction by bot.


We also have the vision to "freeze" correct data (of data that should 
not change) by using Literialists, first to easy control big dataset, 
but after a while putting in logic that hampers changes in his data.


So not manually or Bot but both.

Anders


Den 2019-03-20 kl. 12:46, skrev Gerard Meijssen:

Hoi,
The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than
any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it
has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its quality
and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have issues.
All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things are
the same.

The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy
because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so much
with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the
entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of
disambiguation..  For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at
least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is
among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at
Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when
Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).

When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as
well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an error
rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category of
alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors
introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors
that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation
processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we could
synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import
authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A
consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all Wikipedias
who take an interest.

In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language
they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of
what a Wikipedia has to offer.

So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is room
for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about
sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and
not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition.
Thanks,
   GerardM


On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen  wrote:


Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than
by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity of
anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
was a spike of bot activity.
We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor which
appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
(these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots). Quite
a difference.
The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and curate
the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
"real" as in the TV series "real humans")

Best regards
Gabe

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan <
olaniyanshol...@gmail.com>
wrote:


This is a good news.

Cheers!!!

Olaniyan Olushola
CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
President, Wikimedia Nigeria
Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
Co-director Wiki Women Radio
www.wikimedia.org.ng
sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
olaniyanshol..

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than
any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it
has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its quality
and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have issues.
All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things are
the same.

The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy
because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so much
with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the
entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of
disambiguation..  For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at
least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is
among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at
Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when
Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).

When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as
well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an error
rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category of
alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors
introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors
that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation
processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we could
synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import
authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A
consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all Wikipedias
who take an interest.

In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language
they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of
what a Wikipedia has to offer.

So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is room
for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about
sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and
not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen  wrote:

> Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
> Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than
> by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
> few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
> on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity of
> anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
> of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
> was a spike of bot activity.
> We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor which
> appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
> (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots). Quite
> a difference.
> The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and curate
> the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
> bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
> being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
> "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
>
> Best regards
> Gabe
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan <
> olaniyanshol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is a good news.
> >
> > Cheers!!!
> >
> > Olaniyan Olushola
> > CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
> > President, Wikimedia Nigeria
> > Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
> > Co-director Wiki Women Radio
> > www.wikimedia.org.ng
> > sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
> > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
> > +2348167352512
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk  >
> > > Hello Ariel Glenn,
> > > Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> > > making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
> on
> > > Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> > > congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > >
> > > Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
> Wikidata...
> > > > HU
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >   GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
> > > > > revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped
> > off
> > > > by a
> > > > > tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
> > > displays
> > > > > the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
> > > > Wikida

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Pierre-Selim]

Well I guess it's great to see the popularity of Wikidata. That said
comparing edit counts has never been really meaningful and we all know it.

So great milestone, does it mean anything more than there is a lot of work
going on, I don't know.

That said Kudos to all people involved in Wikidata.

Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 10:51, Caroline Becker  a
écrit :

> But... bots are operated, written, and reviewed by real humans ? Like if I
> spend 2 hours adding "painting by Vincent van Gogh" manually on every
> relevant item by hand, how is that more valuable than spending 20 minutes
> to write a bot that does that for me (and can be used for similar tasks) ?
>
> Caroline
>
>
> Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 10:45, Gabriel Thullen  a
> écrit :
>
> > Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
> > Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots
> than
> > by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
> > few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
> > on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity
> of
> > anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
> > of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
> > was a spike of bot activity.
> > We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor
> which
> > appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
> > (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots).
> Quite
> > a difference.
> > The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and
> curate
> > the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
> > bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
> > being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
> > "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
> >
> > Best regards
> > Gabe
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan <
> > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is a good news.
> > >
> > > Cheers!!!
> > >
> > > Olaniyan Olushola
> > > CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
> > > President, Wikimedia Nigeria
> > > Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
> > > Co-director Wiki Women Radio
> > > www.wikimedia.org.ng
> > > sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
> > > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
> > > +2348167352512
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk  > >
> > > > Hello Ariel Glenn,
> > > > Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> > > > making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
> > on
> > > > Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> > > > congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
> > Wikidata...
> > > > > HU
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >   GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number
> of
> > > > > > revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was
> tipped
> > > off
> > > > > by a
> > > > > > tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
> > > > displays
> > > > > > the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
> > > > > Wikidata
> > > > > > overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > > > www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > > > en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> > > > > > Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is
> 888629401
> > > > > > 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have a nice day!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ariel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Caroline Becker]

But... bots are operated, written, and reviewed by real humans ? Like if I
spend 2 hours adding "painting by Vincent van Gogh" manually on every
relevant item by hand, how is that more valuable than spending 20 minutes
to write a bot that does that for me (and can be used for similar tasks) ?

Caroline


Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 10:45, Gabriel Thullen  a
écrit :

> Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
> Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than
> by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
> few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
> on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity of
> anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
> of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
> was a spike of bot activity.
> We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor which
> appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
> (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots). Quite
> a difference.
> The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and curate
> the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
> bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
> being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
> "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
>
> Best regards
> Gabe
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan <
> olaniyanshol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is a good news.
> >
> > Cheers!!!
> >
> > Olaniyan Olushola
> > CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
> > President, Wikimedia Nigeria
> > Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
> > Co-director Wiki Women Radio
> > www.wikimedia.org.ng
> > sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
> > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
> > +2348167352512
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk  >
> > > Hello Ariel Glenn,
> > > Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> > > making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
> on
> > > Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> > > congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > >
> > > Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
> Wikidata...
> > > > HU
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >   GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
> > > > > revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped
> > off
> > > > by a
> > > > > tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
> > > displays
> > > > > the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
> > > > Wikidata
> > > > > overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
> > > > >
> > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > > www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
> > > > >
> > > > > Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
> > > > >
> > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> > > > > Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
> > > > > 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
> > > > >
> > > > > Have a nice day!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ariel
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Gabriel Thullen]

Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than
by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity of
anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
was a spike of bot activity.
We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor which
appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
(these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots). Quite
a difference.
The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and curate
the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
"real" as in the TV series "real humans")

Best regards
Gabe

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan 
wrote:

> This is a good news.
>
> Cheers!!!
>
> Olaniyan Olushola
> CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
> President, Wikimedia Nigeria
> Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
> Co-director Wiki Women Radio
> www.wikimedia.org.ng
> sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
> olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
> +2348167352512
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk 
> > Hello Ariel Glenn,
> > Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> > making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than on
> > Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> > congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> > Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata...
> > > HU
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
> > > > revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped
> off
> > > by a
> > > > tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
> > displays
> > > > the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
> > > Wikidata
> > > > overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
> > > >
> > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
> > > >
> > > > Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
> > > >
> > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> > > > Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
> > > > 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
> > > >
> > > > Have a nice day!
> > > >
> > > > Ariel
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Olushola Olaniyan]

This is a good news.

Cheers!!!

Olaniyan Olushola
CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
President, Wikimedia Nigeria
Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
Co-director Wiki Women Radio
www.wikimedia.org.ng
sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
+2348167352512








On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk  Hello Ariel Glenn,
> Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than on
> Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hoi,
> > So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata...
> > HU
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
> > > revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off
> > by a
> > > tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
> displays
> > > the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
> > Wikidata
> > > overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
> > >
> > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
> > >
> > > Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
> > >
> > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> > > Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
> > > 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
> > >
> > > Have a nice day!
> > >
> > > Ariel
> > >
> > > [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Ariel Glenn,
Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than on
Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
Kind regards
Ziko


Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:

> Hoi,
> So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata...
> HU
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:
>
> > Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
> > revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off
> by a
> > tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays
> > the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
> Wikidata
> > overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
> >
> > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
> >
> > Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
> >
> > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> > Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
> > 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
> >
> > Have a nice day!
> >
> > Ariel
> >
> > [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata...
HU
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
> revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off by a
> tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays
> the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where Wikidata
> overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
>
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
>
> Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
>
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
> 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
>
> Have a nice day!
>
> Ariel
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):

[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z

Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:

[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422

Have a nice day!

Ariel

[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,