User:Piotrus/Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
sp |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
|}
{{update|reason=New data for the current year should be added|date=August 2023}}
All the time one can hear claims that Wikipedia has "enough articles" and it is unlikely to grow. And all the time those predictions are proven wrong. In summer 2006, there were about 2 millions articles in need of translation from non-English Wikipedias, and more then 50 million of specialized topics in need of creation (I justify those numbers below). In summer 2011, Wikipedia boasted 3.5 million articles, still covering less than 10% of what would be, roughly, a comprehensive coverage of world's notable subjects. Wikipedia is just in its infancy...▼
▲All the time one can hear claims that Wikipedia has "enough articles" and it is unlikely to grow. And all the time those predictions are proven wrong. In summer 2006, there were about 2 millions articles in need of translation from non-English Wikipedias, and more
==Introduction==
Line 12 ⟶ 14:
I checked pages of [[User:YurikBot]] and on [[Wikipedia:Interwikimedia link]], [[Wikipedia:Interlanguage links]] (shouldn't those two be merged?), and [[Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination]], but they don't seem to have the answer (or I can't find it :>)
Note: while the initial comparison (Polish Wikipedia, PSB) was done by me (<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|<
==Polish Wikipedia interwiki test==
So I decided to run a little test: take a [[random sample]] of 100 pages from [[Polish Wikipedia]] (4th largest Wikipedia with over 250,000 articles) and see how many have interwiki links to en wiki. The sample was taken by clicking the '[[Wikipedia:Random page|random page]]' button and noting down if article has an interwiki or not.
Results: out of 100 pages randomly selected on Polish Wikipedia, 72 had no interwiki links to en Wikipedia. (test as of 22 July 2006;
Notes:
Line 54 ⟶ 56:
Next, I decided to run a comparison of 'how many articles from a random encyclopedic publication' are missing on Wikipedia. The publication I selected, [[Polski Słownik Biograficzny]] (encyclopedia of famous Poles), was not completely random, but as far as I know there is no project dedicated to creating relevant stubs on en-wiki, and as one of my past projects there is a nice index at [[User:Piotrus/List of Poles]]. Note also that PSB is not a general knowledge encyclopedia but a specialized knowledge encyclopedia.
Results: as of 22 July 2006 out of selected 1000 entries of [[User:Piotrus/List of Poles/Kisielinski-Korzelinski]], about 30 entries have blue links (I ignored entries in need of disambigation, like 10 entries for [[Konrad]]).
Notes:
Line 69 ⟶ 71:
=== Updates ===
Preeliminary analysis suggests coverage improvement of ~1% per year, with the estimate completion around turn of the century, assuming a linear growth model...
# 8 August 2007. I counted 34 blue links in 'Kisielinski-Korzelinski'. I counted two more for better stats: 'Olbrycht-Pawleta' - 37; 'Ebenberger-Gembicki' - 28 - so the ~3% still holds.
# 16 May 2008. 'Jesionowski-Kisielewski': 47. 'Skowron-Spiczakow': 23. 'Biergel-Bzowski': 36. Some interesting outliers, but it is safe to say ~3% still holds.
# 25 December 2008. 'Biergel-Bzowski': 36, 'Hoser-Jerzykowski': 46, 'Majnert-Michiels': 44. ~4%?
# 23 March 2009. 'Danielski-Dzwonkowski': 52. 'Lichtenstein-Majkowski': 67. 'Rutowicz-Schreiber'. 58 ~5%?
# 16 June 2009. 'Skowron-Spiczakow': 28. 'Przyalgowski-Retke': 65. 'Grodecki-Hoscki': 48. ~5%?
# 8 Dec 2010. 'Kisielinski-Korzelinski' 58. 'Olbrycht-Pawleta' 66; 'Ebenberger-Gembicki' 60. ~6%, and double the coverage of 2007.
# 23 May 2011. 'Gemma-Groddeck' 58; 'Rutowicz-Schreiber' - 70; 'Krzesinski-Lichtarowicz' - 61. Keeping at ~6%
# 25 Oct 2011. 'Abakanowicz-Bienkowski' 57, 'Korzeniewski-Krzesimowski' 67, 'Skowron-Spiczakow' - 37. No change.
| |||