I was thinking that "2015 in sports" would be a good alternative. It ranks highly for both number of citations and the length of the article. Also, it uses lots of small templates for the flags of countries.
Pine On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Ed Erhart <[email protected]> wrote: > Setting aside the benchmark measurement, Obama is extremely well-known, > and that will help get traction on social... as opposed to city nicknames > or law clerks of the US Supreme Court. > > --Ed > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hmm. Maybe it's easier to send the SM out and deal with the tech fine >> print by having people read a full write-up from the provided links? >> >> I mainly wish that we could use some relatively safe, apolitical, >> uncontroversial article for the example. >> >> Pine >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Jeremy Baron <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 13, 2015 1:06 AM, "Pine W" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Perhaps we should take the discussion of how best to measure page >>> rendering performance to Wikitech. Would that be ok with you? >>> >>> We could. Or maybe the research or analytics lists list would be better. >>> >>> But should that block getting the SM out the door? >>> >>> > I agree that there is value in continuity, but remember that Wikipedia >>> articles change over time, so unless someone is using a specific rev for >>> measuring every time that they make a change to how the page renders, then >>> there is likely to be at least some unreliability in the measurement. >>> >>> Obviously we could double check this but I'd wager that Obama's cite >>> count would have trended upward in the last couple years. (so e.g. if we >>> compared older HHVM vs. newer HHVM with constant Obama rev the gains would >>> be more extreme than if we did older HHVM + older Obama vs. newer HHVM + >>> newer Obama) >>> >>> Anyway, it should be technically feasible to run benchmarks for old >>> software again against the new revisions. In this case the author wasn't >>> actually comparing to past numbers. (I think...) Only generating his own >>> new numbers for a constant rev. And anyway, the comparison to old numbers >>> wouldn't be meaningful (without rerunning them) because hardware's not >>> constant. >>> >>> > Technical factors like bandwidth and geolocation may also be involved >>> in skewing the validity of comparisons. >>> >>> I can't imagine a scenario where that's relevant. Does anyone benchmark >>> specific articles over the public internet? vs. running the client on the >>> same local network as the server. >>> >>> > For most citations, there appears to be a manually updated list here: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_with_the_most_references >>> >>> not just manually updated but each entry has its own separate update >>> date??? hrmmm, Obama is listed lower on that list than another article with >>> Obama in title… >>> >>> -Jeremy >>> >>> P.S. the recently released slow parse logs may be useful for choosing >>> articles to track over time. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T98563 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Social-media mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Social-media mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media >> >> > > > -- > Ed Erhart > Editorial Intern > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Social-media mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media > >
_______________________________________________ Social-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
