Alas, judging a language edition by Wikimedia Statistics does not work.
Indonesian, Asturian and Volapük WPs have the same "depth" (8), but
id.WP is a very good WP. How comes? There not so many edits per
article in id.WP, because it has translated a lot from English. A
legitimate way to create (good) articles, but it does not need a lot
of edits.
Bot activity: Indeed, "bot bumps" can often easily be detected in stats tables.
Especially the small Wikipedias (I suppose) show (relatively) many bot
activities due to interwiki linking. On the other hand, pseudo
articles can be created by hand (let a script create it outside WP and
then insert it "manually").
Ziko
2008/6/27 Harel Cain <
harel.cain@...>:
> The depth criterion available here:
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_wikipedias is a good starting
> point. I quote: "The "Depth" column ((Edits/Articles) ×
> (Non-Articles/Articles) × (Stub-ratio)) is a rough indicator of a
> Wikipedia's quality, showing how frequently its articles are updated."
>
> Note that indeed Volapuek, Polish, Ripuarian and others have very low
> depth ranking.
>
>
> Harel
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Ziko van Dijk <
zvandijk@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be good if the community found a different way to compare or
>> to measure it's successes.
>
>
> --
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
>
foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
