If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US
National Academy of Engineering do not have articles.
More than one thing seems a weird standard, in my opinion. An
athlete wouldnt be notable unless also a movie star? But perhaps you
mean elected twice to their legislature?
I do
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US
National Academy of Engineering do not have articles.
More than one thing seems a weird standard, in my opinion.
To be expected it was invented by the BLP mob.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US
National Academy of Engineering do not have articles.
More than one thing seems a weird standard,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US
National Academy of
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni
It did evolve from that, and it made very good sense in that context,
to avoid having the name of a victim given undue unfortunate
prominence. It makes sense in some other BLP contexts also, but its
expansion to a general rule is what was absurd. BLP1E should, in my
opinion, have been confined to
On 29 March 2010 03:55, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Even for the US, about 80% of the members of state legislatures
historically are not covered. For the current Michigan House of
Representatives, only 50% of the current members have articles, and
almost none of the earlier ones.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:08 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2010 03:55, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
If the other Wikipedias did similarly full coverage of their home
countries and we translated the articles, there would probably be
potential for an order of
Within any state, any public library will be able to assist
sufficiently on their own state's legislature.
Even for those who don't like libraries, GBooks probably will in the
next few years scan all local newspapers for pre-1920 (they have quite
a lot already), what information for that period
On 29 March 2010 19:43, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Within any state, any public library will be able to assist
sufficiently on their own state's legislature.
Much of it isn't online and photocopies remain way pricey. Do
libraries generally throw people out for getting out
On 29 March 2010 19:18, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
How so? Number of countries is 193 (roughly), but even if you factor
in the fact that some countries share languages and some countries are
a bit, well, small, you still have something that could approach a
factor of x10
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2010 19:18, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
How so? Number of countries is 193 (roughly), but even if you factor
in the fact that some countries share languages and some countries are
a bit, well, small,
On 29/03/2010, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Even for the US, about 80% of the members of state legislatures
historically are not covered. For the current Michigan House of
Representatives, only 50% of the current members have articles, and
almost none of the earlier ones.
this is
On 29 March 2010 19:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2010 19:43, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Within any state, any public library will be able to assist
sufficiently on their own state's legislature.
Much of it isn't online and photocopies remain way
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htmIt's obvious of the
peak in January of
Oh yeah, the Account Creation proccess, article upload wizard, and commons
image uploading process has some effect as well. In optimizing one or a few
times contributions, we perhaps also do not pique interest in further
content creation. On the other hand, maybe they wouldn't have even tried
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The number of new contributors _must_
decline at some point, unless you hold a hypothesis that Wikipedia
will eventually be driving the growth of human population. ;)
Well, young people *are* increasingly turning to
On 03/27/2010 09:49 PM, Keegan Paul wrote:
What I'm interested in is thoughts of why New Contributors has statistically
declined sharply, but the list of active contributors has much less of a
slope and even less so for very active contributors.
What happened in the first six months of 2007?
On 28/03/2010, Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htmIt's obvious of the
peak in January of 2007.
What I'm interested in is thoughts of why New Contributors has statistically
declined
Ian Woollard wrote:
* - there's been some new articles required since the Wikipedia
started up in 2001; knowledge has been created! New knowledge is
eventually going to set the level of continued growth of the
Wikipedia, perhaps about 500 articles per day or something. If you
look at the new
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I think a lot of people get involved to write new articles. It looks
like 2007 was 'peak oil' for new articles; after that it was getting
harder to find new articles to write; about half of the articles that
On 28/03/2010, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
I think a lot of people get involved to write new articles. It looks
like 2007 was 'peak oil' for new articles; after that it was getting
harder to find new
On 28 March 2010 20:42, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Just as an example, I was taking part in the Military History World
War I contest recently, and there were at least 43 new articles
created (or expanded) for DYK. I'm currently trying to work out how
many articles were
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:06 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2010 20:42, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Just as an example, I was taking part in the Military History World
War I contest recently, and there were at least 43 new articles
created (or expanded) for
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
The idea comes from a mixture of looking at the statistics peak and
looking at the articles that still are needed. Nearly all of the
low-hanging fruit is clearly gone now. Most of the mid-hanging fruit
is also
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htmIt's obvious of the
peak in January of 2007.
What I'm interested in is thoughts of why New Contributors has statistically
declined sharply, but the list of active contributors has much less of
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htmIt's obvious of the
peak in January of 2007.
What I'm interested in is thoughts of why New Contributors has
28 matches
Mail list logo
