On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:01, [email protected] wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Benchmark of versions (Anders Wennersten)
2. Re: Its not goodbye, but au revoir (Richard Symonds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 16:53:42 +0100
From: Anders Wennersten <[email protected]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Benchmark of versions
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
As a test of our status of the different language versions of Wikipedia,
I have done a small survey of that status of Birds. There exist just
over 10000 species, very well documented and there are people interested
of birds all over the world, so it should be be possible for all
versions to have complete set of articles for all bird species.
I used a small sample of just 6 species and gave article a mark between
1-5, where 1 is substandard, 2 extremely elementary, 3 OK, 4 good, 5
complete
Versions which seems to have all species
*en 4 of 6 botgenerated and stubmarked given mark 2,5 by me. The other
two were created manually and were given mark 4,5 and 5 by me
*nl 4 or 5 of 6 bot, given 2,5 the sixth given 4
*sv 5 of 6 bot, given 2,5 , the sixth given 3
*vietnamese all bot given 2
*bg all bot given 2
*basque all bot given 2
versions with 5 out of 6 species
*es all manully created, given 2-5
*fr all manually created, given 2,5-4
versions with 3-4 out of 6
*fi 3 manually created, given 2-2,5
*pt 4 where of two bot, bot given 2,5, the manual given 1,5 and 4
*farsi 3 all bot, given 2
*catalan 3 all bot, given 2
of the rest can be mentioned
*punjabi & croatia who had 1 botgenerated, given 1-1,5
*esperanto botgeneted the only one not direct from source but from otehr
language version
*germany who had only one specie manually created but that given 5 from me
( 1-2 manually created also was found from it, pl, hungary, russia,
serbocroatia, africaans and malay)
It is also worth mentioning that a little over 50% have pictures in
Commons, used by all, but one bird had only a picture locally uploaded
on Malay and Finnish Wikipedia
I also wonder why Japanse and Chinese wre all missing out, are they not
fond of birds or are their interwiki not working?
it gives me a total of 11 verions who have used bots to generate (and
Cebuano and Winary which I did not include). Is not a combination of
botgenerted ones manually checked and complemented a preferred option
besides the one who will be extensively written all manually
Anders
------------------------------
