Search is a Discovery team focus, rather than a Readership focus. I'd suggest reaching out to Dan Garry (we have been talking about project integration very recently, actually).
On 16 September 2015 at 15:32, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was thinking in terms of GB of text. > > I too have wondered about creating closer ties between Wiktionary, Wikipedia > and Wikisource so that it's easier for someone to start their search on one > site and quickly find relevant pages on the other sites. This might (among > other things) lead to an increase in pageviews. (Adding Toby to this email > chain to see if he has any thoughts about that.) It would also conceivably > lead to an increase in the "size" of Wikipedia (measured in bytes, content > pages, and contributors) if Wiktionary and Wikisource were, for purposes of > the reader, practically the same site. The downside might be increased > complexity for contributors as the number of workflows increases, and the > standards for inclusion may be different. > > Pine > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:21 AM, WereSpielChequers > <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm pretty sure that English Wikipedia is the largest English language >> encyclopaedia, but there are some humongous ones in China. >> >> Baidu Baike with almost 12.5 million articles is way bigger than any one >> language version of Wikipedia and Baike.com formerly Hudong is about a >> million bigger still. >> >> Ok they are more inclusionist than us, recipes included, and they have >> somewhat dropped the distinction between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia. >> >> So you can claim that Wikipedia with near 35 million articles in 288 >> languages is the largest encyclopaedia ever. Adding wiktionary would make >> that even bigger. >> >> Source Wikipedia - I'm afraid I don't speak Chinese to check them myself. >> >> Of course articles is a flawed metric, combining almost all the individual >> Pokemon articles into a handful of lists reduced the number of Wikipedia >> articles by hundreds, but still left us with more information on Pokemon >> than I would want to see in a printed encyclopaedia. But then can anyone >> suggest a meaningful metric for comparing such projects; Participants? >> Contributed edits? Shelf space if printed in traditional encyclopaedia sized >> books? Gigabytes of text? Trays of microfiche? >> >> Regards >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> On 16 Sep 2015, at 01:24, Jonathan Morgan <jmor...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Pine, >> >> TL;DR: best to just say it's the largest encyclopedia ever. That should be >> safe. >> >> Claims like this are hard to make because terms that seem concrete from >> afar tend to break down up close. For example: What do you mean by largest? >> >> Largest in bytes? Words? Content "units" (articles vs. manuscripts in this >> case, I guess)? Contributors? >> >> What do you mean by "open text project"? Is archive.org an open text >> project? It has 8.2 million books. How would you compare the two? Does 1 >> book = 1 article? >> >> Having said all that, I'm curious how others have/would craft a claim like >> this. My guess is that most of us who've written for an academic audience >> have settled for some variant of "largest encyclopedia" (you've got to put >> something in your Introduction paragraph, after all). What sayst? >> >> J >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi researchers, >>> >>> I could use a little help with understanding these dumps: >>> >>> https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwikisource/latest/ >>> >>> https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20150901/ >>> >>> I'm trying to verify the claim that ENWP is the world's largest open text >>> project, and to do that I need to verify that ENWP is larger than English >>> Wikisource. Which files should I be comparing? >>> >>> Are there any other projects that could make a claim to be a larger open >>> text project than ENWP? Perhaps there's a library somewhere that has such a >>> huge volume of out-of-copyright materials that the combined bytes of >>> published text are larger than ENWP? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Pine >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan T. Morgan >> Senior Design Researcher >> Wikimedia Foundation >> User:Jmorgan (WMF) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > -- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l