User talk:Piotrus/Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] We don't need them!
Wikipedia doesn't need anything like 400 million articles. Having that many would increase the housekeeping requirements by a huge multiple and the utility of the site by a small percentage. Even as Wikipedia is now, the vast majority of its value lies in a few percent of the articles. Calsicol 00:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- the vast majority of its value lies in a few percent of the articles citation needed :D Honestly, what makes you say so? The fact that some articles are more popular or controversial does not translates directly into their utility: I 'd argue that a good entry on sociocultural evolution is more more useful then the most popular article on Wiki, a biography of GWB. By the same talken I think that the relatively not popular entries on subjects like kanclerz and Polish-Romanian Alliance, which to my knowledge are not described on any English language online pages, are of immense utility, even if only to a few people interested in those fringe topics, who likely would not be able to dig information on them (at least, not online). Therefore I would say that the vast majorit of Wikipedia lies in its highly specialzed articles on fringe topics, which hopefully will increase to 400 million the sooner the better.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
At 400 million articles, that would make 400 times the cleanup load. It would also mean that there would beclose to a half million admins and over half a billion users. I think we might be hitting the point at which we out grow the size of the current internet. We are already close to the top ten websites. At 400 million pages, we would be far above the number two site.--Rayc 06:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with that, especially as at that time we should have stuff like quantum computers, brain implants and such that should allow us to continue to scale :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- OMG, imagine all those wikimaniacs devoting the precious CPU time of their implants to this project instead of helping to find the cure for cancer. As a chain smoker I should be rather devoted to the latter than the earlier, huh? //Halibutt 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing's stopping you from doing both: Rosetta@home, Folding@home... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 09:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- OMG, imagine all those wikimaniacs devoting the precious CPU time of their implants to this project instead of helping to find the cure for cancer. As a chain smoker I should be rather devoted to the latter than the earlier, huh? //Halibutt 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good fast estimation study
It shows how that we will never the limit of our knowledge as subjects will continue to add on and more pages will always be dedicated to newer topics. It also shows that we can actually counter systemic bias by communicating and translating articles in such a way that all the important subjects all over the world would have an article on them. There used to be a project that offered money (to Wikipedia I think) when people used to create articles on subjects that aren't covered in the english books. Lincher 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wales mention
Jimbo mentioned this essay (more or less) in a NYT interview (Jimmy Wales: 2 Million Articles Down and More to Do, NYT, Wednesday, August 8, 2007. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Count
I counted roughly what is contained in langlinks dump files, see [1]
- de -> en: 339,1 K links
- fr -> en: 314,9 K
- pl -> en: 180,7 K
- en -> de: 338,5 K links
- en -> fr: 310,2 K
- en -> pl: 174,5 K
(Preceding unsigned comment added 8 August 2007 by User:West29north34) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsp13 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
