Folks,
Sorry if this is a duplicate thread but I haven't seen anything about
reaching this milestone.
The Christian Science Monitor reports/
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows-past-3-million-english-articles/
"Wikipedia, the upstart social experiment that trusts
Keith Old wrote:
> "Wikipedia, the upstart social experiment that trusts the online mob to
> steward world knowledge, has hit a major milestone.
>
> The English volume of the Web encyclopedia reached its 3 millionth article.
> That massive number of whos, whats, wheres, and whens culminated with a
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Does my memory deceive me? Or is it true that 2 of the 3 "millionth"
> articles related to soap operas?
>
A Scottish railway station, and the Spanish TV comedy programme [[El
Hormiguero]], were what you were thinking of. If you regard Europe as
one big historical soap o
Those crazy Europeans! Why can't they just decide on one language!
-Original Message-
From: Charles Matthews
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Does my memory de
I updated the three millionth topic pool:
Answer: Beate Eriksen, an obscure Norwegian actress.
Winner:
Cryptic C62, "Sarah Badel, an obscure actress."
Honorable mention:
Michael of Lucan, "Norwegian post offices 1943-1985 "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_pool
On Tue
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Keith Old wrote:
> "Both see the other ruining Wikipedia, either by defeating the point of an
> open encyclopedia, or by expanding its “pages” until the site dies from
> irrelevance.
Wow. That's the worst characterisation of the inclusionist/deletionist
struggle I'
You may want to take a look at the Guardian blog post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/aug/17/wikipedia-three-
million
and also a couple by the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6042931/Wikipedia-
reaches-three-million-articles.html
http://www.telegraph.co
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
> All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian Science
> {{citation needed}} Monitor.
Really?
The Telegraph one was poor.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6042931/Wikipedia-reaches-three-million-articles.htm
On 18 Aug 2009, at 18:34, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael Peel
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian
>> Science
>> {{citation needed}} Monitor.
>
> Really?
>
> The Telegraph one was poor.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/t
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
> * The article describes Britannica as "the oldest English language
> encyclopedia". In fact, it is the oldest continuously published
> English language encyclopedia.
>
> Interesting. What was the oldest English language encyclopaedia, then?
Michael Peel wrote:
> * Wikipedia was launched by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, not by Ward
> Cunningham and Richard Stallman.
>
> True, but this is Wikipedia's fault. "The pioneering concept and
> technology of Wiki comes from Ward Cunningham, the concept of a free
> online encyclopedia from
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1917002,00.html
Time magazine ... can't get excited about the whole business really. But
why is Wales not James if Sanger is Lawrence?
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
>
>
>
>> * The article describes Britannica as "the oldest English language
>> encyclopedia". In fact, it is the oldest continuously published
>> English language encyclopedia.
>>
>> Interesting. What was the oldest Englis
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> The problem with collecting all these is the space they take up. I've
> just acquired a [[Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana]]
> with supplements to 1980 for $1.00 per volume :-) ... plus shipping :-(
> . I have also been o
2009/8/18 Charles Matthews :
> Err ... it's Wikipedia's fault if hurried journalists today do nothing
> but research on it and misinterpret what they find? Puh-lease. To get
> from that to "It was formally launched on January 15 in 2001 by Ward
> Cunningham and Richard Stallman" you need to do ple
avid Gerard
To: charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com; English Wikipedia
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:33 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
2009/8/18 Charles Matthews :
> Err ... it's Wikipedia's fault if hurried journalists today do nothing
> but research o
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Why not scan them and "store" them at wikisource?
Lol. Indeed. Why not scan 200 volumes of an encyclopaedia? For fun, OCR it too..
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To uns
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> The problem with collecting all these is the space they take up. I've
>> just acquired a [[Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana]]
>> with supplements to 1980 for $1.00 per volume :-) ... plus shi
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> Goodness. Yes. That is a large number of volumes.
>>
>> Why not scan them and "store" them at wikisource? Or are these modern
>> encyclopedias rather than old ones?
>>
> 1,000 pages x 200 volumes = 200,000 pages. The F
2009/8/19 Carcharoth :
> Sure. It will take time. :-)
> But once done, you will have space for more!
> 200,000 pages at 10 pages a day is 20,000 days, which is 54.79 years.
> You might need to crowdsource the scanning.
There's cutting the binding off and auto-feeding the stack of pages
into a sc
2009/8/17 Keith Old :
> The Christian Science Monitor reports/
> http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows-past-3-million-english-articles/
WIKIALITY, The Tenderloin, Saturday -- The online encyclopedia,
knowledge base, social networking site, essay repository, blog, se
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> How do Google Books and libraries and Project Gutenberg and others do
> mass scanning and OCR of books? Do they use lots of money and funding
> to pay lots of people to do lots of scanning on lots of machines, or
> do they automate it in some wa
Carcharoth wrote:
> How do Google Books and libraries and Project Gutenberg and others do
> mass scanning and OCR of books? Do they use lots of money and funding
> to pay lots of people to do lots of scanning on lots of machines, or
> do they automate it in some way?
>
Google apparently pays pea
Oh, now THAT'S funny.
Smiling,
Emily
On Aug 19, 2009, at 8:19 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/17 Keith Old :
>
>> The Christian Science Monitor reports/
>> http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows-past-3-million-english-articles/
>
>
> WIKIALITY, The Tenderloin, Saturd
2009/8/19 Emily Monroe :
> Oh, now THAT'S funny.
I actually looked up Wikipedia's word count. The last estimate is 1.6
billion words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_in_volumes
"Three million articles" is obviously big. But no-one has a feel for
how big that is. OVER A BILLION WORD
2009/8/19 David Gerard :
> The SOS Children Wikipedia Selection for Schools seems very cut-down,
> being only several thousand long articles from Wikipedia on a DVD ...
> so about half the size of the full printed Britannica, then.
Although we still haven't worked out what size people will general
None ever published have approached either our size or our
completeness. There is no experience, and no prior basis for public
acceptance or non-acceptance. We have made many assumptions about
what the public wants, but the public will want different things, and
why should we think we can fulfil
> Perhaps the more rational approach is to do what our structure can
> do well, and let other projects in the future try other ways and
> other things and other goals.
I think this is a great idea.
Emily
On Aug 22, 2009, at 3:45 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> Perhaps the more rational approach
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:20 PM, geni wrote:
> Although we still haven't worked out what size people will general
> accept as a fairly complete general encyclopedia.
I think if we had almost every article you would find in a *single
volume* encyclopedia up to featured or good status that would be
2009/8/23 Bod Notbod :
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:20 PM, geni wrote:
>
>> Although we still haven't worked out what size people will general
>> accept as a fairly complete general encyclopedia.
>
> I think if we had almost every article you would find in a *single
> volume* encyclopedia up to feat
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> I believe they have machines to turn pages, and something to figure
> out the distorted photo of the book and render it how it would look as
> a flat page.
Yeah, there are videos of these machines. The book sits open, the
scanner comes down a
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1917002,00.html
Interesting.
> Time magazine ... can't get excited about the whole business really. But
> why is Wales not James if Sanger is Lawrence?
Because Larry's given name is Lawren
On 8/18/09, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> The problem with collecting all these is the space they take up. I've
> just acquired a [[Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana]]
> with supplements to 1980 for $1.00 per volume :-) ... plus shipping :-(
> . I have also been offered [[Enciclopedia
On 8/23/09, Bod Notbod wrote:
> I think if we had almost every article you would find in a *single
> volume* encyclopedia up to featured or good status that would be a
> great foundation.
That isn't going to happen, simply because we don't have enough people
interested in, or even capable of, th
34 matches
Mail list logo
