3 ms·

I used to like watching the article counts on this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias B

I used to like watching the article counts on this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias But then the Dutch started using bots to inflate their article count... which was ok for a year or two but then other wikipedias started doing the same thing. Now I watch edit number of edits. I don't care that bots are used, but article counts are completely useless in comparing wikipedias and it didn't used to be that way. Sure there were better measurements, but article counts were still pretty good. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wikipedias/Table&oldid=3055022 http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wikipedi...

Crito 12y ago
Wiki "size" = [Number of Articles] - [Number of Stub Articles] Is a human-written stub article about minor characters from some fantasy book more valuable than a robot-written stub article about a type of grass? Is either article worth considering when trying to create some sort of metric for "wiki health"? Is this metric actually useful for anything, other than as a curiosity? If I were multi-lingual and was trying to decide which wiki to use, I'd go with whichever wiki was in my primary language. If I did not find the information I was after, I would check the other wikis for the same article (nicely listed on the left portion of the screen).