New projects opened

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
73 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

New projects opened

Milos Rancic-2
Yesterday, new projects were opened:

* Sorani Wikipedia (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/)
* Western Panjabi Wikipedia (http://pnb.wikipedia.org/)
* Mirandese Wikipedia (http://mwl.wikipedia.org/)
* Acehnese Wikipedia (http://ace.wikipedia.org/)
* Turkish Wikinews (http://tr.wikinews.org/)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Ivan Lanin-2
Thanks for the information. I'll spread the word to Acehnese community.

------Original Message------
From: Milos Rancic
Sender: [hidden email]
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] New projects opened
Sent: Aug 13, 2009 15:30

Yesterday, new projects were opened:

* Sorani Wikipedia (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/)
* Western Panjabi Wikipedia (http://pnb.wikipedia.org/)
* Mirandese Wikipedia (http://mwl.wikipedia.org/)
* Acehnese Wikipedia (http://ace.wikipedia.org/)
* Turkish Wikinews (http://tr.wikinews.org/)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


--
Ivan Lanin. http://www.wikimedia.or.id
Dikirim dari BeriHitam® 25704A0F
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Milos Rancic<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yesterday, new projects were opened:
>
> * Sorani Wikipedia (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/)
> * Western Panjabi Wikipedia (http://pnb.wikipedia.org/)
> * Mirandese Wikipedia (http://mwl.wikipedia.org/)
> * Acehnese Wikipedia (http://ace.wikipedia.org/)
> * Turkish Wikinews (http://tr.wikinews.org/)

I find that interwiki links to these projects (at least the
Wikipedias, I haven't checked on Wikinews) are not working yet. Could
someone from the technical team mend this asap? Thanks in advance!



--
André Engels, [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Kul Wadhwa
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
Nice!

Quick sp correction: Punjabi


Milos Rancic wrote:

> Yesterday, new projects were opened:
>
> * Sorani Wikipedia (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/)
> * Western Panjabi Wikipedia (http://pnb.wikipedia.org/)
> * Mirandese Wikipedia (http://mwl.wikipedia.org/)
> * Acehnese Wikipedia (http://ace.wikipedia.org/)
> * Turkish Wikinews (http://tr.wikinews.org/)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Ivan Lanin-2
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Andre Engels<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I find that interwiki links to these projects (at least the
> Wikipedias, I haven't checked on Wikinews) are not working yet. Could
> someone from the technical team mend this asap? Thanks in advance!
> --
> André Engels, [hidden email]

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20214

--
Ivan Lanin. http://www.wikimedia.or.id

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Kul Wadhwa
Hoi,
Actually according to the standard Panjabi is the correct spelling.
Thanks,
      GerardM

http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=pnb

2009/8/13 Kul Takanao Wadhwa <[hidden email]>

> Nice!
>
> Quick sp correction: Punjabi
>
>
> Milos Rancic wrote:
> > Yesterday, new projects were opened:
> >
> > * Sorani Wikipedia (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/)
> > * Western Panjabi Wikipedia (http://pnb.wikipedia.org/)
> > * Mirandese Wikipedia (http://mwl.wikipedia.org/)
> > * Acehnese Wikipedia (http://ace.wikipedia.org/)
> > * Turkish Wikinews (http://tr.wikinews.org/)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Kul Wadhwa


Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Actually according to the standard Panjabi is the correct spelling.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM

Hmmm...really? And I'm half Punjabi. You'd think I should know that. --Kul

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Mohamed Magdy-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hoi,
> Actually according to the standard Panjabi is the correct spelling.
>
It is the same moronic standard which says that the Egyptian dialect is a
language.

Congrats to the new projects, I just hope that they are really needed and
not dupes.

user:alnokta
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

geni
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
2009/8/13 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>:
> Yesterday, new projects were opened:
>
> * Sorani Wikipedia (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/)
> * Western Panjabi Wikipedia (http://pnb.wikipedia.org/)
> * Mirandese Wikipedia (http://mwl.wikipedia.org/)
> * Acehnese Wikipedia (http://ace.wikipedia.org/)
> * Turkish Wikinews (http://tr.wikinews.org/)

Is there any chance of a wikipedia in any of the Berber languages
appearing soon?



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
When the "most often used Mediawiki messages" have been localised for any of
the Berber languages, we will be looking at the status at the Incubator.
When there are sufficient articles of a sufficient size written by a smalll
community we will see if the language is recognised as the language it is
said to be.

So yes. You may prod me or an other memver of the langcom when you think it
is appropriate.
Thanks,
       GerardM

2009/8/13 geni <[hidden email]>

> 2009/8/13 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>:
> > Yesterday, new projects were opened:
> >
> > * Sorani Wikipedia (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/)
> > * Western Panjabi Wikipedia (http://pnb.wikipedia.org/)
> > * Mirandese Wikipedia (http://mwl.wikipedia.org/)
> > * Acehnese Wikipedia (http://ace.wikipedia.org/)
> > * Turkish Wikinews (http://tr.wikinews.org/)
>
> Is there any chance of a wikipedia in any of the Berber languages
> appearing soon?
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
2009/8/13 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>:
> Yesterday, new projects were opened:
>
> * Sorani Wikipedia (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/)
> * Western Panjabi Wikipedia (http://pnb.wikipedia.org/)
> * Mirandese Wikipedia (http://mwl.wikipedia.org/)
> * Acehnese Wikipedia (http://ace.wikipedia.org/)
> * Turkish Wikinews (http://tr.wikinews.org/)

For those curious as to overall statistics, that's about 270 language
editions of Wikipedia, now. (The various lists seem to disagree
slightly, and it's a little lower if we omit two "empty" projects).

Turkish Wikinews is the 28th Wikinews project - there's now Turkish
editions of wikinews, wikiquote, wikisource, and wikitionary, as well
as wikipedia.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Casey Brown-5
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Andrew Gray<[hidden email]> wrote:
> For those curious as to overall statistics, that's about 270 language
> editions of Wikipedia, now. (The various lists seem to disagree
> slightly, and it's a little lower if we omit two "empty" projects).
>
> Turkish Wikinews is the 28th Wikinews project - there's now Turkish
> editions of wikinews, wikiquote, wikisource, and wikitionary, as well
> as wikipedia.
>

Remember there's also the SiteMatrix:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix>, it has totals and
also lets you see visually how many projects in each language (ie. how
many in Turkish) too.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Lars Aronsson
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray-3
Andrew Gray wrote:

> For those curious as to overall statistics, that's about 270 language
> editions of Wikipedia, now. (The various lists seem to disagree
> slightly, and it's a little lower if we omit two "empty" projects).

I think we need to get away from counting articles and languages,
as if all were equal and more were better.  Some languages are far
more successful than others.  Some articles are far more useful
than others.  Perhaps some languages and articles should be
considered as failures and not be counted among our achievements.

Of these 270 languages of Wikipedia, only 41 have more than 50,000
articles and only 69 had more than 1 million page views in July of
2009.  The 69th most used Wikipedia is Swahili. This East African
language has 50 million speakers, which is huge, but less than
13,000 Wikipedia articles.  Can poverty and illiteracy alone
explain why the Swahili Wikipedia is so far behind?

But Swahili is far from the worst.  Swahili has twice as many
speakers as the West African language Yoruba (50 vs 25 M, both are
huge languages) and twice the number of articles (13 k vs 6.3 k),
but the Swahili Wikipedia had 6 times as many page views (1.0 M vs
172 k).  Somebody with knowledge of Africa should study this in
more detail.  For the speakers of these languages, in which
proportions do they read (newspapers) or listen (to radio
broadcasts) to get news and knowledge?  Do they ever use (printed)
encyclopedias?

People who speak Swedish, Danish, Finnish and Norwegian are very
similar in wealth, education, living conditions, and computer
literacy.  Yet, the Danish Wikipedia is far smaller and less
visited than the other three.  How can that be?  Traditionally,
Danish is the more literate of these four cultures. If we can find
out what holds the Danish Wikipedia back, and find a remedy,
perhaps it can be applied to other languages as well.

Language          Danish     Norwegian  Swedish  Finnish
                             (Bokmål)
Speakers          6 M        4.7 M      9 M      6 M
Size rank         102        111        78       103

Wikipedia
articles          114 k      225 k      325 k    213 k
Size rank         23         13         11       14

July 2009
page views        14.7 M     21.5 M     59.8 M   49.7 M
Traffic rank      25         23         12       14
Annual growth     +18 %      +11 %      +19 %    +2 %

Views/speakers    2.4        4.6        6.6      8.3
Articles/spkr     .019       .047       .036     .036
Spkrs/article     53         21         28       28

Length of article on Michael Jackson
before his death  18 kB      20 kB      41 kB    20 kB
Current length    70 kB      26 kB      60 kB    44 kB
Views in July     72 k       58 k       175 k    136 k
Views/speaker     .012       .012       .019     .022

When compared to Swahili or Yoruba, all of these North European
languages of Wikipedia have been very successful, having more page
views in a month than speakers of the language, and much higher
traffic rank (12-25) than language size rank (78-111).  But the
interesting aspect is the differences within such a group, that
presumably should have been even more homogeneous.

The German language has 105 M speakers, 942 k Wikipedia articles,
and 846 M page views in July 2009, i.e. 8.0 views/speaker (as high
as Finnish), but only .009 articles per speaker of the language
(half of Danish).  The German Wikipedia is generally considered to
be successful, yet it has a low number of articles per speaker of
the language.  So maybe articles/speaker is a useless metric.

If the Finnish Wikipedia can get 8.3 page views per speaker of the
language with only 213 k articles, then perhaps their articles are
better (more informative, more useful) than the larger number of
articles in the Swedish Wikipedia, which only attract 6.6 page
views per speaker of the language.

The German article on Michael Jackson got 2.1 M page views during
July, or .020 per speaker of the language, similar to the Swedish
and Finnish Wikipedia articles.  Why did the Danish and Norwegian
articles get only 12 page views per thousand speakers?


--
  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Robert Rohde
Personally, I think the 20000 articles in the Bengali Wikipedia
serving a speaking community of 230 million is an even better example
of failure.

-Robert Rohde

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Lars Aronsson<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> For those curious as to overall statistics, that's about 270 language
>> editions of Wikipedia, now. (The various lists seem to disagree
>> slightly, and it's a little lower if we omit two "empty" projects).
>
> I think we need to get away from counting articles and languages,
> as if all were equal and more were better.  Some languages are far
> more successful than others.  Some articles are far more useful
> than others.  Perhaps some languages and articles should be
> considered as failures and not be counted among our achievements.
>
> Of these 270 languages of Wikipedia, only 41 have more than 50,000
> articles and only 69 had more than 1 million page views in July of
> 2009.  The 69th most used Wikipedia is Swahili. This East African
> language has 50 million speakers, which is huge, but less than
> 13,000 Wikipedia articles.  Can poverty and illiteracy alone
> explain why the Swahili Wikipedia is so far behind?
>
> But Swahili is far from the worst.  Swahili has twice as many
> speakers as the West African language Yoruba (50 vs 25 M, both are
> huge languages) and twice the number of articles (13 k vs 6.3 k),
> but the Swahili Wikipedia had 6 times as many page views (1.0 M vs
> 172 k).  Somebody with knowledge of Africa should study this in
> more detail.  For the speakers of these languages, in which
> proportions do they read (newspapers) or listen (to radio
> broadcasts) to get news and knowledge?  Do they ever use (printed)
> encyclopedias?
>
> People who speak Swedish, Danish, Finnish and Norwegian are very
> similar in wealth, education, living conditions, and computer
> literacy.  Yet, the Danish Wikipedia is far smaller and less
> visited than the other three.  How can that be?  Traditionally,
> Danish is the more literate of these four cultures. If we can find
> out what holds the Danish Wikipedia back, and find a remedy,
> perhaps it can be applied to other languages as well.
>
> Language          Danish     Norwegian  Swedish  Finnish
>                             (Bokmål)
> Speakers          6 M        4.7 M      9 M      6 M
> Size rank         102        111        78       103
>
> Wikipedia
> articles          114 k      225 k      325 k    213 k
> Size rank         23         13         11       14
>
> July 2009
> page views        14.7 M     21.5 M     59.8 M   49.7 M
> Traffic rank      25         23         12       14
> Annual growth     +18 %      +11 %      +19 %    +2 %
>
> Views/speakers    2.4        4.6        6.6      8.3
> Articles/spkr     .019       .047       .036     .036
> Spkrs/article     53         21         28       28
>
> Length of article on Michael Jackson
> before his death  18 kB      20 kB      41 kB    20 kB
> Current length    70 kB      26 kB      60 kB    44 kB
> Views in July     72 k       58 k       175 k    136 k
> Views/speaker     .012       .012       .019     .022
>
> When compared to Swahili or Yoruba, all of these North European
> languages of Wikipedia have been very successful, having more page
> views in a month than speakers of the language, and much higher
> traffic rank (12-25) than language size rank (78-111).  But the
> interesting aspect is the differences within such a group, that
> presumably should have been even more homogeneous.
>
> The German language has 105 M speakers, 942 k Wikipedia articles,
> and 846 M page views in July 2009, i.e. 8.0 views/speaker (as high
> as Finnish), but only .009 articles per speaker of the language
> (half of Danish).  The German Wikipedia is generally considered to
> be successful, yet it has a low number of articles per speaker of
> the language.  So maybe articles/speaker is a useless metric.
>
> If the Finnish Wikipedia can get 8.3 page views per speaker of the
> language with only 213 k articles, then perhaps their articles are
> better (more informative, more useful) than the larger number of
> articles in the Swedish Wikipedia, which only attract 6.6 page
> views per speaker of the language.
>
> The German article on Michael Jackson got 2.1 M page views during
> July, or .020 per speaker of the language, similar to the Swedish
> and Finnish Wikipedia articles.  Why did the Danish and Norwegian
> articles get only 12 page views per thousand speakers?
>
>
> --
>  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Apparently you are not aware that the Bengali Wikipedia is the biggest
resource in Bengali on the Internet. As a consequence it is a big success !!
Sure there should be more articles and we would absolutely welcome more
articles, more readers more positive attention for the Bengali Wikipedia.

One other way of looking at it is the quality of the technical support for
Bengali. I think I remember that there are issues with the Bengali script. I
also think I remember that there was no solution forth coming. If I remember
well, I would argue that that despite the odds the Bengali language
Wikipedia is doing really well.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/8/20 Robert Rohde <[hidden email]>

> Personally, I think the 20000 articles in the Bengali Wikipedia
> serving a speaking community of 230 million is an even better example
> of failure.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Lars Aronsson<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Andrew Gray wrote:
> >
> >> For those curious as to overall statistics, that's about 270 language
> >> editions of Wikipedia, now. (The various lists seem to disagree
> >> slightly, and it's a little lower if we omit two "empty" projects).
> >
> > I think we need to get away from counting articles and languages,
> > as if all were equal and more were better.  Some languages are far
> > more successful than others.  Some articles are far more useful
> > than others.  Perhaps some languages and articles should be
> > considered as failures and not be counted among our achievements.
> >
> > Of these 270 languages of Wikipedia, only 41 have more than 50,000
> > articles and only 69 had more than 1 million page views in July of
> > 2009.  The 69th most used Wikipedia is Swahili. This East African
> > language has 50 million speakers, which is huge, but less than
> > 13,000 Wikipedia articles.  Can poverty and illiteracy alone
> > explain why the Swahili Wikipedia is so far behind?
> >
> > But Swahili is far from the worst.  Swahili has twice as many
> > speakers as the West African language Yoruba (50 vs 25 M, both are
> > huge languages) and twice the number of articles (13 k vs 6.3 k),
> > but the Swahili Wikipedia had 6 times as many page views (1.0 M vs
> > 172 k).  Somebody with knowledge of Africa should study this in
> > more detail.  For the speakers of these languages, in which
> > proportions do they read (newspapers) or listen (to radio
> > broadcasts) to get news and knowledge?  Do they ever use (printed)
> > encyclopedias?
> >
> > People who speak Swedish, Danish, Finnish and Norwegian are very
> > similar in wealth, education, living conditions, and computer
> > literacy.  Yet, the Danish Wikipedia is far smaller and less
> > visited than the other three.  How can that be?  Traditionally,
> > Danish is the more literate of these four cultures. If we can find
> > out what holds the Danish Wikipedia back, and find a remedy,
> > perhaps it can be applied to other languages as well.
> >
> > Language          Danish     Norwegian  Swedish  Finnish
> >                             (Bokmål)
> > Speakers          6 M        4.7 M      9 M      6 M
> > Size rank         102        111        78       103
> >
> > Wikipedia
> > articles          114 k      225 k      325 k    213 k
> > Size rank         23         13         11       14
> >
> > July 2009
> > page views        14.7 M     21.5 M     59.8 M   49.7 M
> > Traffic rank      25         23         12       14
> > Annual growth     +18 %      +11 %      +19 %    +2 %
> >
> > Views/speakers    2.4        4.6        6.6      8.3
> > Articles/spkr     .019       .047       .036     .036
> > Spkrs/article     53         21         28       28
> >
> > Length of article on Michael Jackson
> > before his death  18 kB      20 kB      41 kB    20 kB
> > Current length    70 kB      26 kB      60 kB    44 kB
> > Views in July     72 k       58 k       175 k    136 k
> > Views/speaker     .012       .012       .019     .022
> >
> > When compared to Swahili or Yoruba, all of these North European
> > languages of Wikipedia have been very successful, having more page
> > views in a month than speakers of the language, and much higher
> > traffic rank (12-25) than language size rank (78-111).  But the
> > interesting aspect is the differences within such a group, that
> > presumably should have been even more homogeneous.
> >
> > The German language has 105 M speakers, 942 k Wikipedia articles,
> > and 846 M page views in July 2009, i.e. 8.0 views/speaker (as high
> > as Finnish), but only .009 articles per speaker of the language
> > (half of Danish).  The German Wikipedia is generally considered to
> > be successful, yet it has a low number of articles per speaker of
> > the language.  So maybe articles/speaker is a useless metric.
> >
> > If the Finnish Wikipedia can get 8.3 page views per speaker of the
> > language with only 213 k articles, then perhaps their articles are
> > better (more informative, more useful) than the larger number of
> > articles in the Swedish Wikipedia, which only attract 6.6 page
> > views per speaker of the language.
> >
> > The German article on Michael Jackson got 2.1 M page views during
> > July, or .020 per speaker of the language, similar to the Swedish
> > and Finnish Wikipedia articles.  Why did the Danish and Norwegian
> > articles get only 12 page views per thousand speakers?
> >
> >
> > --
> >  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
> >  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
Hoi,
One of the reasons why Danish has been sluggish may be that the localisation
of Danish was not optimal; in Februari 83.66% of the MediaWiki messages and
14.11% of the WMF used extensions were localised. This has improved to
100.00%  and 59.30% respectively ... compare this with Norwegian 100.00%
96.92% Nynorsk 100.00% 84.81% and Swedish 100.00% 99.33%..
Thanks,
       GerardM

2009/8/20 Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]>

> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> > For those curious as to overall statistics, that's about 270 language
> > editions of Wikipedia, now. (The various lists seem to disagree
> > slightly, and it's a little lower if we omit two "empty" projects).
>
> I think we need to get away from counting articles and languages,
> as if all were equal and more were better.  Some languages are far
> more successful than others.  Some articles are far more useful
> than others.  Perhaps some languages and articles should be
> considered as failures and not be counted among our achievements.
>
> Of these 270 languages of Wikipedia, only 41 have more than 50,000
> articles and only 69 had more than 1 million page views in July of
> 2009.  The 69th most used Wikipedia is Swahili. This East African
> language has 50 million speakers, which is huge, but less than
> 13,000 Wikipedia articles.  Can poverty and illiteracy alone
> explain why the Swahili Wikipedia is so far behind?
>
> But Swahili is far from the worst.  Swahili has twice as many
> speakers as the West African language Yoruba (50 vs 25 M, both are
> huge languages) and twice the number of articles (13 k vs 6.3 k),
> but the Swahili Wikipedia had 6 times as many page views (1.0 M vs
> 172 k).  Somebody with knowledge of Africa should study this in
> more detail.  For the speakers of these languages, in which
> proportions do they read (newspapers) or listen (to radio
> broadcasts) to get news and knowledge?  Do they ever use (printed)
> encyclopedias?
>
> People who speak Swedish, Danish, Finnish and Norwegian are very
> similar in wealth, education, living conditions, and computer
> literacy.  Yet, the Danish Wikipedia is far smaller and less
> visited than the other three.  How can that be?  Traditionally,
> Danish is the more literate of these four cultures. If we can find
> out what holds the Danish Wikipedia back, and find a remedy,
> perhaps it can be applied to other languages as well.
>
> Language          Danish     Norwegian  Swedish  Finnish
>                             (Bokmål)
> Speakers          6 M        4.7 M      9 M      6 M
> Size rank         102        111        78       103
>
> Wikipedia
> articles          114 k      225 k      325 k    213 k
> Size rank         23         13         11       14
>
> July 2009
> page views        14.7 M     21.5 M     59.8 M   49.7 M
> Traffic rank      25         23         12       14
> Annual growth     +18 %      +11 %      +19 %    +2 %
>
> Views/speakers    2.4        4.6        6.6      8.3
> Articles/spkr     .019       .047       .036     .036
> Spkrs/article     53         21         28       28
>
> Length of article on Michael Jackson
> before his death  18 kB      20 kB      41 kB    20 kB
> Current length    70 kB      26 kB      60 kB    44 kB
> Views in July     72 k       58 k       175 k    136 k
> Views/speaker     .012       .012       .019     .022
>
> When compared to Swahili or Yoruba, all of these North European
> languages of Wikipedia have been very successful, having more page
> views in a month than speakers of the language, and much higher
> traffic rank (12-25) than language size rank (78-111).  But the
> interesting aspect is the differences within such a group, that
> presumably should have been even more homogeneous.
>
> The German language has 105 M speakers, 942 k Wikipedia articles,
> and 846 M page views in July 2009, i.e. 8.0 views/speaker (as high
> as Finnish), but only .009 articles per speaker of the language
> (half of Danish).  The German Wikipedia is generally considered to
> be successful, yet it has a low number of articles per speaker of
> the language.  So maybe articles/speaker is a useless metric.
>
> If the Finnish Wikipedia can get 8.3 page views per speaker of the
> language with only 213 k articles, then perhaps their articles are
> better (more informative, more useful) than the larger number of
> articles in the Swedish Wikipedia, which only attract 6.6 page
> views per speaker of the language.
>
> The German article on Michael Jackson got 2.1 M page views during
> July, or .020 per speaker of the language, similar to the Swedish
> and Finnish Wikipedia articles.  Why did the Danish and Norwegian
> articles get only 12 page views per thousand speakers?
>
>
> --
>  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Gerard
Meijssen<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Apparently you are not aware that the Bengali Wikipedia is the biggest
> resource in Bengali on the Internet. As a consequence it is a big success !!
> Sure there should be more articles and we would absolutely welcome more
> articles, more readers more positive attention for the Bengali Wikipedia.

I am not quite sure. Banglapedia [1] has smaller number of articles,
but 10 volumes * 500 pages seems quite a lot; probably equal to
~30.000 Wikipedia articles, but maybe more.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banglapedia

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Marcus Buck-2
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
Lars Aronsson hett schreven:
> I think we need to get away from counting articles and languages,
> as if all were equal and more were better.
Whether languages are all equal, depends on the point of view. From a
global point of view, Chinese is not equal to !Xóõ. Chinese has more
than a billion speakers and !Xóõ only about 4000. From a global point of
view Chinese is more important. But from an individual's point of view
the languages _are_ equal. If !Xóõ is your native and only language !Xóõ
means as much to you as Chinese to a Chinese native speaker. To a !Xóõ
native all of Wikimedia is meaningless if we don't provide any !Xóõ
content. If we start providing !Xóõ content we will most likely soon be
the most useful !Xóõ resource existing.

So if you want to "get away from counting articles and languages, as if
all were equal and more were better", then don't count them. If we have
a !Xóõ Wikipedia with an article count of exactly '1' and this one
article is about Michael Jackson, then it is perfectly useful to a !Xóõ
speaker searching for info on Michael Jackson. And on the other side, if
you have an 841,000 article encyclopedia, it's still useless for a
person searching for info about !Xóõ, if there is no article about !Xóõ.

What I want to say: please everybody get away from calling projects
"failure", "worse", "weak" or whatever. It's all subjective. And it's
entirely meaningless, whether Michael Jackson attracts 12 or 20 page
views per 1000 speakers. If 988 people had no interest in looking up
Michael Jackson, then that's okay. We still served the 12 who had.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Lars Aronsson<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Of these 270 languages of Wikipedia, only 41 have more than 50,000
> articles and only 69 had more than 1 million page views in July of
> 2009.  The 69th most used Wikipedia is Swahili. This East African
> language has 50 million speakers, which is huge, but less than
> 13,000 Wikipedia articles.  Can poverty and illiteracy alone
> explain why the Swahili Wikipedia is so far behind?

Poverty, or better said, lack of internet access, is probably the main
factor. Here in Europe and North America, we are used to having fast
internet from the home 24/7. In those countries it may well be (I am
not sure, never having been there) that dial-up speeds paid per minute
at some internet cafe is the norm. That would considerably lessen
people's interest in writing the material, and if it is not written,
people will not read it either.

But another issue could be a lack of expectancy of having material in
the own language. I have heard this plays a role with the languages
from India, and it may well have the same, or even stronger so, with
the African ones: the daily language for speaking is the local
language, but when one is writing or looking for something on the
internet, one is more likely to use English (or in other parts of
Africa, French). It may well be that many Swahili speakers use English
when they are on the internet - either because that is the language
they learned reading and writing in (although people for which that is
true are probably not the generation using internet the most), or
because they found that they can get so much more information (on the
internet as a whole) in English than in Swahili, that it well
outweighs the linguistic disadvantage. They come to the English
Wikipedia, not the Swahili one, and when they find that here too there
is much more in English, that's where they stick.

In the case of Swahili there is yet another factor, namely that
Swahili itself is rarely a mother tongue and much more often a second
language. Because of that, the relative size of the disadvantage of
using English is even smaller.

> But Swahili is far from the worst.  Swahili has twice as many
> speakers as the West African language Yoruba (50 vs 25 M, both are
> huge languages) and twice the number of articles (13 k vs 6.3 k),
> but the Swahili Wikipedia had 6 times as many page views (1.0 M vs
> 172 k).  Somebody with knowledge of Africa should study this in
> more detail.  For the speakers of these languages, in which
> proportions do they read (newspapers) or listen (to radio
> broadcasts) to get news and knowledge?  Do they ever use (printed)
> encyclopedias?

Taking a look at Wikipedia, I see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Nigeria and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Kenya. For Nigeria
about 32 newspapers are given - from their titles, 80% seem to be in
English. The 3 or 4 mentioned for Kenya are all in English, and
although the articles mention some of the papers have Swahili sister
publications, the English language newspapers seem to have by far the
greatest market share. This I think confirms my hypothesis above, that
another reason for African languages to do so poorly is that in the
countries and regions where they are spoken, there is a large
competition from the languages of the former colonizers - especially
in the area of written communication.


--
André Engels, [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New projects opened

Yann Forget-2
Andre Engels wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Lars Aronsson<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Of these 270 languages of Wikipedia, only 41 have more than 50,000
>> articles and only 69 had more than 1 million page views in July of
>> 2009.  The 69th most used Wikipedia is Swahili. This East African
>> language has 50 million speakers, which is huge, but less than
>> 13,000 Wikipedia articles.  Can poverty and illiteracy alone
>> explain why the Swahili Wikipedia is so far behind?
>
> Poverty, or better said, lack of internet access, is probably the main
> factor. Here in Europe and North America, we are used to having fast
> internet from the home 24/7. In those countries it may well be (I am
> not sure, never having been there) that dial-up speeds paid per minute
> at some internet cafe is the norm. That would considerably lessen
> people's interest in writing the material, and if it is not written,
> people will not read it either.
>
> But another issue could be a lack of expectancy of having material in
> the own language. I have heard this plays a role with the languages
> from India, and it may well have the same, or even stronger so, with
> the African ones: the daily language for speaking is the local
> language, but when one is writing or looking for something on the
> internet, one is more likely to use English (or in other parts of
> Africa, French). It may well be that many Swahili speakers use English
> when they are on the internet - either because that is the language
> they learned reading and writing in (although people for which that is
> true are probably not the generation using internet the most), or
> because they found that they can get so much more information (on the
> internet as a whole) in English than in Swahili, that it well
> outweighs the linguistic disadvantage. They come to the English
> Wikipedia, not the Swahili one, and when they find that here too there
> is much more in English, that's where they stick.

This explains the situation very well.
In the case of languages not using the Latin alphabet, there is one more
obstacle: you need a localized computer, i.e. for reading, at least the
proper fonts are needed, and for writing an adapted keyboard is also
needed. For what I have seen, this is rarely the case in India. Every
computer is sold with an English keyboard only, and the fonts must be
installed by the user himself.

> In the case of Swahili there is yet another factor, namely that
> Swahili itself is rarely a mother tongue and much more often a second
> language. Because of that, the relative size of the disadvantage of
> using English is even smaller.

Right. This is also the case for Hindi, the second or third language for
more than 200 M speakers (native Assamese, Bengali, Bihari, Gujarati,
Kashmiri, Marathi, Oriya or Punjabi speakers and more).

Yann

>> But Swahili is far from the worst.  Swahili has twice as many
>> speakers as the West African language Yoruba (50 vs 25 M, both are
>> huge languages) and twice the number of articles (13 k vs 6.3 k),
>> but the Swahili Wikipedia had 6 times as many page views (1.0 M vs
>> 172 k).  Somebody with knowledge of Africa should study this in
>> more detail.  For the speakers of these languages, in which
>> proportions do they read (newspapers) or listen (to radio
>> broadcasts) to get news and knowledge?  Do they ever use (printed)
>> encyclopedias?
>
> Taking a look at Wikipedia, I see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Nigeria and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Kenya. For Nigeria
> about 32 newspapers are given - from their titles, 80% seem to be in
> English. The 3 or 4 mentioned for Kenya are all in English, and
> although the articles mention some of the papers have Swahili sister
> publications, the English language newspapers seem to have by far the
> greatest market share. This I think confirms my hypothesis above, that
> another reason for African languages to do so poorly is that in the
> countries and regions where they are spoken, there is a large
> competition from the languages of the former colonizers - especially
> in the area of written communication.

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234