On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 16:03, geni<geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/7/14 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com>: >> Ian Woollard wrote: >>> It's looking to me like 3.5 million is about the plateau, since the >>> curve is bang on that, but we might make 4 million *eventually*. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth#Logistic_model_for_growth_in_article_count_of_Wikipedia >>> >> We'll know more around the beginning of 2010. In my view something is >> likely to change in the direction of people valuing lists of "missing >> articles" more, when it is clearer that drive-by creation is getting >> drossier by the month (which is what that model implies). Of course I >> can't quantify that: I know it is still easy to come up with sets of >> 1000 topics that we don't cover at all well, and the total of redlinks >> is still large. >> >> Charles > > Redlinks in general perhaps. Redlinks in articles a significant number > of people actually read less so.
Redlinks are likely to be a poor estimate of numbers of "missing" articles anyway. Some will be to articles that would be non-notable, and redlinks tend to be removed - in other words links that would be present if we had the article aren't there as redlinks. > > > > -- > geni > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- 1001010 1001000110000111011001101100 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l