Hoi,
Lies, damned lies and statistics. The quality of Wikidata suffers, it could
be so much better if we truly wanted Wikidata to grow. Your numbers only
show growth within the limits of what has been made possible. Traffic and
numbers could be much more.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 17:17, Marco Neumann <marco.neum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerard, I like wikidata a lot, kudos to the community for keeping it
> going. But keep it real, there is no exponential growth here.
>
> We are looking at a slow and sustainable growth at the moment with
> possibly a plateauing of number of users and when it comes to total number
> of wikidata items. just take a look at the statistics.
>
> Date | Content pages | Page edits since Wikidata was set up | Registered
> users | Active users
>
> 4/2015 | 13,911,417 | 213,027,375 | 1,913,828 | 15,168
> 5/2016 | 17,432,789 | 328,781,525 | 2,688,788 | 16,833
> 7/2017 | 28,037,196 | 514,252,789 | 2,835,219 | 18,081
> 7/2018 | 49,081,962 | 701,319,718 | 2,970,150 | 18,578
> 4/2019 | 56,377,647 | 931,449,205 | 3,236,569 | 20,857
>
> When you refer to "growing like a weed". What's that page views? queries
> per day? Mentions in the media?
>
> Best,
> Marco
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:36 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> This mail thread is NOT about the issues that I or others face at this
>> time. They are serious enough but that is not for this thread. People are
>> working hard to find a solution for now. That is cool.
>>
>> What I want to know is are we technically and financially ready for a
>> continued exponential growth. If so, what are the plans and what if those
>> plans are needed in half the time expected. Are we ready for a continued
>> growth. When we hesitate we will lose the opportunities that are currently
>> open to us.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 16:24, Thad Guidry <thadgui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gerard mentioned the PROBLEM in the 2nd sentence. I read it clearly....
>>>
>>> >we all experience in the really bad response times we are suffering.
>>> It is so bad that people are asked what kind of updates they are running
>>> because it makes a difference in the lag times there are.
>>>
>>> The response times are typically attributed to SPARQL queries from what
>>> I have seen, as well as applying multiple edits with scripts or mass
>>> operations. Although I recall there is a light queue mechanism inherent in
>>> the Blazegraph architecture that contributes to this, and I am fine with
>>> slower writes.
>>>
>>> What most users are not comfortable with is the slower reads in
>>> different areas of Wikidata.
>>> We need to identify those slow read areas or figure out a way to get
>>> consensus on what parts of Wikidata reading affect our users the most.
>>>
>>> So let's be constructive here:
>>> Gerard - did you have specific areas that affect your daily work, and
>>> what from of work is that (reading/writing , which areas) ?
>>>
>>> Thad
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> ---
> Marco Neumann
> KONA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
