Read the rest :P
On Jun 13, 2015 02:43, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(adding Analytics, as a relevant group for this discussion.)
I think this is next to meaningless, because the differing bot policies and
practices on different wikis skew the data into incoherence.
The (already
Read the rest :P
On Jun 13, 2015 02:43, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(adding Analytics, as a relevant group for this discussion.)
I think this is next to meaningless, because the differing bot policies and
practices on different wikis skew the data into incoherence.
The (already
(adding Analytics, as a relevant group for this discussion.)
I think this is next to meaningless, because the differing bot policies and
practices on different wikis skew the data into incoherence.
The (already existing) metric of active-editors-per-million-speakers is, it
seems to me, a far
Interesting, but you miss Latin language which is official language of a
country (even if English Wikipedia says differently).
regards
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
When you get data, at some point of time you start thinking about
quite fringe
When you get data, at some point of time you start thinking about
quite fringe comparisons. But that could actually give some useful
conclusions, like this time it did [1].
We did the next:
* Used the number of primary speakers from Ethnologue. (Erik Zachte is
using approximate number of primary
