Wikipedia now has more than 6M articles in English

Post by soheil » Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 4:20 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #70

soheil wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't hate on my comment, all I can do is ask not to be downvoted, at least I tried. Here is my case against Wikipedia. In a capitalistic model it makes little sense why Wikipedia should thrive without enriching someone so massively in the process, therefore, it must be corrected. If we assume that line of thinking is valid (which I'm not saying we should or shouldn't) then it follows that an alternative Wikip…

You're glossing over that Wikipedia would not be feasible if you had to pay people to do it, and if it were not free, you'd have to pay people to do it. Your "capitalistic model" likely does not correspond sufficiently to reality to be useful. And why did you write this comment? There is no need for a "case against Wikipedia."

Post by incompatible » Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 4:33 AM UTC

commoner wrote: post #47

mactrey wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia's rules on notability and article length prevent it from growing infinitely (in theory). So my point is exactly that - all that "low-hanging fruit" is mostly gone, and most of the actual writing work that's left is either writing a new article on a subject that is at the margin of notability, which one would expect the average adult to have less interest in than writing a new article on a truly notable subj…

> Wikipedia's rules on notability and article length prevent it from growing infinitely (in theory). That doesn't appear to be true. New people are born, new events occur, new things are discovered, and new entertainment is released every day, all of which increase the pool of eligible topics on Wikipedia. As long as history continues to be made, new articles will continue to be written.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 4:36 AM UTC

soheil wrote: post #71

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're glossing over that Wikipedia would not be feasible if you had to pay people to do it, and if it were not free, you'd have to pay people to do it. Your "capitalistic model" likely does not correspond sufficiently to reality to be useful. And why did you write this comment? There is no need for a "case against Wikipedia."

I am saying that it would not be feasible, we're actually in agreement on that point. > And why did you write this comment? I feel like you want comments to always have a political motive. > There is no need for a "case against Wikipedia." It's an intellectual exercise.

Post by rat9988 » Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 4:39 AM UTC

balladeer wrote: post #72

fhoffa wrote: post #40

6 million pages! A quick look at their distribution: 3.6M of these pages got less than 10 views during December. 4.3M pages got less than 100 views each. 2.3M got less than 1000 views. That's the long tail. On the other side 680K pages got more than 1,000 views, 111K pages got more than 10k views, only 6k pages got more than 100k views, and 90 pages were able to gather more than 1M views (Star Wars, The Mandalorian,…

Sometimes I worry about projects about Wikipedia and the Archive. When will they run out of storage space and money? When will it become too big to handle?

Post by rapnie » Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 4:51 AM UTC

brownbat wrote: post #58

Polylactic_acid wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People tend to be super critical of wikipedia but I think it could have been a whole lot worse. We are incredibly lucky that wikipedia isn't owned by some tech megacorp, it isn't loaded with spyware JS bogging it down, and it doesn't require an account to use.

IMDb went through this, it was basically open and crowdsourced, then suddenly became much more commercial, which freaked out a lot of users. And it's... fine. But it was really amazing in the beginning. Much less cruft, much more usable. There was a lot of drama on the late 90s internet that now seems impossible to read about or search for.