Wikipedia talk:Modelling Wikipedia's growth/Archive 1
Error analysisHow about some error analysis for the estimates, and the model predictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.201.113 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2003 FollowupThis should be revisited in 3 to 6 months (ie in Sept 2003, or Dec 2003), to see whether the new data fits the predicted trend line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.201.113 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2003 Exponential growthI have no doubt that there is an exponential growth. Bibliometric shows that the number of publications doubles every 20 years - even wars did not stop this trends (in this case there is smaller groth but faster afterwards).
Estimates beatenThe growth predictions on the graph on this page have already been beaten by quite a margin (it predicts that about 110,000 articles will have been reached by january 2004, which was already reached months ago). Chances are that by Jan 2004 the article count will be closer to 200,000. Isn't it time this was updated and revised. --G-Man 21:56, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC) Software noticeWhile I didn't come to any conclusions, the software I created for User:Jrincayc/Wikipedia Growth Paper#Conclusions is at least more powerful and can do things like filter out robot edits. --Jrincayc 13:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) Suggestion to improve resultsWouldn't the results be much more stable if you look at number of pages per time. Growth is the derivation of the actual value and much more fragile. Easierst way to see if a function is exponetial is looking at logarithm of it. If this is linear growing you have an exponential growth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.122.7.38 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2004
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia