Wikipedia talk:Wikipediology/library/essays/R.fiend-1

message: Great essay. I'd been wondering about doing this kind of big sample random articles test - but I'm also happy that someone else did the work and I can just enjoy the result :)
I agree with your carefully considered conclusions. Sure, we have a tremendous coverage of popular culture - but we've got everything else down pretty well too. The same can be seen from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedia_articles - we're well on our way towards covering every subject traditional encyclopedias have got.
The quality issue is, of course, a much more difficult question - but the coverage issue is hardly even debatable anymore.
Cheers! - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

message: The Wikipedia Signpost had an article this week on such evaluations.
There was also a bot at one time that used a machine-learning algorithm to detect articles that were labelled stubs that were not actually likely to be stubs: I don't know what all it considered, but it included things like article length and content.  Unfortunately I can't remember who ran it.  It may not have even been a bot; it may have just been a program to run on a database dump and identify articles for a human to look at and fix.  Anyway, I thought you might find it interesting.  If you happen to know or figure out who did this, please let me know so I can remember. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other studies 

message: Here's the table in the article, but with the half-widths of a 95% confidence interval.  In English, that means that there's a 95% chance that the true number of a given type is within "+/- #" from "Estimated # in WP".  For example, there's a 95% chance that the true number of full articles is less than 33600 from 342,768.  Put another way, the correct number of full articles was between 309,200 and 376,400. Similarly, the percentage of full articles is somewhere between 40% and 48.8%. This method of analysis only works if the sample percentage is greater than about 1%, so I didn't do the calculations for two of the article types, since the numbers wouldn't be particularly valuable.
Type of article              	Estimated % of WP	Estimated # in WP	       	
Full articles                	44.4%            	342,768          	4.35%  	33600
Stubs                        	17.8%            	137,416          	3.35%  	25900
Substubs                     	10.6%            	81,832           	2.70%  	20800
Disambiguation               	4.6%             	35,512           	1.8%   	13900
Articles from public sources 	1.4%             	10,808           	1.03%  	7950
Rambot articles              	7%               	54,040           	2.24%  	17300
Charts                       	6.8%             	52,596           	2.21%  	17100
Lists                        	2.2%             	16,984           	1.29%  	10000
Requiring substantial cleanup	2%               	15,440           	1.23%  	9500
Should be redirected         	0.6%             	4,632            	—	—
Dubious articles             	1%               	7,720            	—	—
Deletables                   	1.6%             	12,352           	1.10%  	8500
--Spangineeres (háblame) 02:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical analysis 

message: Incidentally, you guys know that randompage isn't really random, right? There are some biases built in, or so Brion told me once. --maru  (talk) contribs 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Randomness 

message: Now we've  articulations. — CpiralCpiral 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki>