Hoi, One of the reasons why Danish has been sluggish may be that the localisation of Danish was not optimal; in Februari 83.66% of the MediaWiki messages and 14.11% of the WMF used extensions were localised. This has improved to 100.00% and 59.30% respectively ... compare this with Norwegian 100.00% 96.92% Nynorsk 100.00% 84.81% and Swedish 100.00% 99.33%.. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Lars Aronsson <l...@aronsson.se> > Andrew Gray wrote: > > > For those curious as to overall statistics, that's about 270 language > > editions of Wikipedia, now. (The various lists seem to disagree > > slightly, and it's a little lower if we omit two "empty" projects). > > I think we need to get away from counting articles and languages, > as if all were equal and more were better. Some languages are far > more successful than others. Some articles are far more useful > than others. Perhaps some languages and articles should be > considered as failures and not be counted among our achievements. > > Of these 270 languages of Wikipedia, only 41 have more than 50,000 > articles and only 69 had more than 1 million page views in July of > 2009. The 69th most used Wikipedia is Swahili. This East African > language has 50 million speakers, which is huge, but less than > 13,000 Wikipedia articles. Can poverty and illiteracy alone > explain why the Swahili Wikipedia is so far behind? > > But Swahili is far from the worst. Swahili has twice as many > speakers as the West African language Yoruba (50 vs 25 M, both are > huge languages) and twice the number of articles (13 k vs 6.3 k), > but the Swahili Wikipedia had 6 times as many page views (1.0 M vs > 172 k). Somebody with knowledge of Africa should study this in > more detail. For the speakers of these languages, in which > proportions do they read (newspapers) or listen (to radio > broadcasts) to get news and knowledge? Do they ever use (printed) > encyclopedias? > > People who speak Swedish, Danish, Finnish and Norwegian are very > similar in wealth, education, living conditions, and computer > literacy. Yet, the Danish Wikipedia is far smaller and less > visited than the other three. How can that be? Traditionally, > Danish is the more literate of these four cultures. If we can find > out what holds the Danish Wikipedia back, and find a remedy, > perhaps it can be applied to other languages as well. > > Language Danish Norwegian Swedish Finnish > (Bokmål) > Speakers 6 M 4.7 M 9 M 6 M > Size rank 102 111 78 103 > > Wikipedia > articles 114 k 225 k 325 k 213 k > Size rank 23 13 11 14 > > July 2009 > page views 14.7 M 21.5 M 59.8 M 49.7 M > Traffic rank 25 23 12 14 > Annual growth +18 % +11 % +19 % +2 % > > Views/speakers 2.4 4.6 6.6 8.3 > Articles/spkr .019 .047 .036 .036 > Spkrs/article 53 21 28 28 > > Length of article on Michael Jackson > before his death 18 kB 20 kB 41 kB 20 kB > Current length 70 kB 26 kB 60 kB 44 kB > Views in July 72 k 58 k 175 k 136 k > Views/speaker .012 .012 .019 .022 > > When compared to Swahili or Yoruba, all of these North European > languages of Wikipedia have been very successful, having more page > views in a month than speakers of the language, and much higher > traffic rank (12-25) than language size rank (78-111). But the > interesting aspect is the differences within such a group, that > presumably should have been even more homogeneous. > > The German language has 105 M speakers, 942 k Wikipedia articles, > and 846 M page views in July 2009, i.e. 8.0 views/speaker (as high > as Finnish), but only .009 articles per speaker of the language > (half of Danish). The German Wikipedia is generally considered to > be successful, yet it has a low number of articles per speaker of > the language. So maybe articles/speaker is a useless metric. > > If the Finnish Wikipedia can get 8.3 page views per speaker of the > language with only 213 k articles, then perhaps their articles are > better (more informative, more useful) than the larger number of > articles in the Swedish Wikipedia, which only attract 6.6 page > views per speaker of the language. > > The German article on Michael Jackson got 2.1 M page views during > July, or .020 per speaker of the language, similar to the Swedish > and Finnish Wikipedia articles. Why did the Danish and Norwegian > articles get only 12 page views per thousand speakers? > > > -- > Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) > Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l