4 ms·

I mean, what are the "local" Wikipedias that would improve the coverage in the countries I listed?

RamblingCTO 3y ago
I'm still unsure what you're getting at. But what I suspect: if there is no local wikipedia version (e.g. the German wiki for Germany), then you possibly can't increase the number of data points, can't you? All depends on there being a Wikipedia in the first place.
- tuukkah 3y ago
  I suppose I didn't (and still don't) understand why you singled out US and GB. Here's my take of the topic: 1. Wikipedia editions are not defined by region but by language, and the relationship between regions and languages is many-to-many. English is spoken (as a dominant language) in US/UK/CA/IE/AU/IN/... among others and German is spoken in DE/AT/CH/IT/... among others. 2. English is one of the language editions. The edition is special mainly in that it has the most diverse regional coverage. 3. All editions have an uneven regional coverage dependent of the speakers' distribution but also population density, literacy, social economics etc. 4. There is overlap between language editions so it's unclear whether given two their union would improve coverage and how. 5. Wikidata is the language-independent knowledge graph that includes the sum of the article metadata regarding all the Wikipedia editions (and more). Now, a global map of Wikipedia articles in English is useful in its own right if you want to see what you can read in English. To improve the coverage, you would write articles about more topics in English. However, if you wanted to see more dots on the map, you could base it on Wikidata to include all articles on all editions, or to include all Wikidata items even with no corresponding Wikipedia articles. Whereas, if you wanted to see what you can read in German, you would need a map that includes the German articles and excludes the English articles. And if you know multiple languages, you might want to see the union of those languages. I start to think you may have in mind people who speak two languages: English and a regionally dominant language. If they wanted to see which articles they can read about the region, they could use a map of those two languages. If those two Wikipedia editions were significantly complementary, it would be a significant improvement in coverage for them. Still, I'm unsure why to single out US/GB when there are other countries where English is the majority (or practically the only) language, there are other countries where the coverage in English is already fine, US/GB also have minority languages that could potentially improve their coverage etc.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    >why you singled out US and GB let's take him at his word, "it's thin outside the US and GB." OK, hmmm, how do we get more global coverage? oh, of course, France would be fr.wiki and Germany would be de.wiki, that would really increase global coverage. now you come in and say "but what about Canada, Australia, etc? there is no nz.wiki et al?" And then you have some ideas about how to do that, ideas which are not strictly "wikipedia" as we see in the headline idea.
    - tuukkah 3y ago
      Perhaps a relevant question: Are you describing a business need, a (supposedly) good way to implemented it, or how are you combining the two here? > OK, hmmm, how do we get more global coverage? Like I said, combine all the Wikipedia editions using Wikidata. > oh, of course, France would be fr.wiki and Germany would be de.wiki And of course, what language is e.g. Belgium (in your model)? > And then you have some ideas about how to do that, ideas which are not strictly "wikipedia" In this strict case, how do you remove duplicates (between the different language editions)?
    - RamblingCTO 3y ago
      Yup, that's it, thanks! My list of English-speaking countries just wasn't exhaustive and were the first I noticed with a higher density than the rest on first glance.

I'm still unsure what you're getting at. But what I suspect: if there is no local wikipedia version (e.g. the German wiki for Germany), then you possibly can't increase the number of data points, can't you? All depends on there being a Wikipedia in the first place.

tuukkah 3y ago
I suppose I didn't (and still don't) understand why you singled out US and GB. Here's my take of the topic: 1. Wikipedia editions are not defined by region but by language, and the relationship between regions and languages is many-to-many. English is spoken (as a dominant language) in US/UK/CA/IE/AU/IN/... among others and German is spoken in DE/AT/CH/IT/... among others. 2. English is one of the language editions. The edition is special mainly in that it has the most diverse regional coverage. 3. All editions have an uneven regional coverage dependent of the speakers' distribution but also population density, literacy, social economics etc. 4. There is overlap between language editions so it's unclear whether given two their union would improve coverage and how. 5. Wikidata is the language-independent knowledge graph that includes the sum of the article metadata regarding all the Wikipedia editions (and more). Now, a global map of Wikipedia articles in English is useful in its own right if you want to see what you can read in English. To improve the coverage, you would write articles about more topics in English. However, if you wanted to see more dots on the map, you could base it on Wikidata to include all articles on all editions, or to include all Wikidata items even with no corresponding Wikipedia articles. Whereas, if you wanted to see what you can read in German, you would need a map that includes the German articles and excludes the English articles. And if you know multiple languages, you might want to see the union of those languages. I start to think you may have in mind people who speak two languages: English and a regionally dominant language. If they wanted to see which articles they can read about the region, they could use a map of those two languages. If those two Wikipedia editions were significantly complementary, it would be a significant improvement in coverage for them. Still, I'm unsure why to single out US/GB when there are other countries where English is the majority (or practically the only) language, there are other countries where the coverage in English is already fine, US/GB also have minority languages that could potentially improve their coverage etc.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  >why you singled out US and GB let's take him at his word, "it's thin outside the US and GB." OK, hmmm, how do we get more global coverage? oh, of course, France would be fr.wiki and Germany would be de.wiki, that would really increase global coverage. now you come in and say "but what about Canada, Australia, etc? there is no nz.wiki et al?" And then you have some ideas about how to do that, ideas which are not strictly "wikipedia" as we see in the headline idea.
  - tuukkah 3y ago
    Perhaps a relevant question: Are you describing a business need, a (supposedly) good way to implemented it, or how are you combining the two here? > OK, hmmm, how do we get more global coverage? Like I said, combine all the Wikipedia editions using Wikidata. > oh, of course, France would be fr.wiki and Germany would be de.wiki And of course, what language is e.g. Belgium (in your model)? > And then you have some ideas about how to do that, ideas which are not strictly "wikipedia" In this strict case, how do you remove duplicates (between the different language editions)?
  - RamblingCTO 3y ago
    Yup, that's it, thanks! My list of English-speaking countries just wasn't exhaustive and were the first I noticed with a higher density than the rest on first glance.