Wikipedia talk:Modelling Wikipedia's growth

message: In section Relationship of Usenet cites to article growth:
: the official article count for the en: Wikipedia appears to
Should that be the following?
: the official article count for the English Wikipedia appears to
--Mortense (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing word 

message: Is there an explanation to the growth trend change that happened in 2006 and the seasonal modulation that started that year? Was there an event that led to it? 89.139.7.56 (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks more like there was a low-growth condition between 2003 and 2006 when the Wikipedia was relatively unknown and there weren't enough contributors. Since 2006 it looks like the number of remaining articles that people know how to write has been reducing- we're mainly running out of low-hanging fruit (i.e. new articles).87.114.8.180 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth trend change in 2006 

message: Hi. I suggest including the appeal that contained many recent statistics about Wikipedia in additional to facts about declines in new editor retention. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sue Gardner's appeal at MetaWiki 

message: Since the natural growth is probably closer to the fit than the line (the 2002 bump was just a bot automaking placeholder articles, most of which would've been created anyway) the course the line now wants to take is even more deviant than it seems.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.216.35 (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like the formula may need to be adusted soon 

message: I don't know if this has been talked about here, but why the almost singular focus upon discussion of the number of wikipedia articles? Maybe that focus appeals to some people because it is easy to measure and think about. And think it means more than it does.
When an individual article expands, that is also wikipedia growth. More articles, with an increasingly inverse relationship to relevance/importance, is not so important.
Again, when articles get better, more accurate, more referenced - that is also wikipedia growth. Mitchitara (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see Page View statistics (accessed from the History Tab) officially supported, and a history of total Page View statistics made available. This would show how Wikipedia traffic is growing year on year. It would also be useful to be able to download a list showing at least the most popular and least popular pages. Improving the most popular pages improves the Wikipedia experience for the largest number of people. Conversely, knowing which pages are currently not relevant or useful to a majority of people is also useful information -- they could be flagged as needing improvement, and maybe deleted if they are not improved. LittleBen (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's growth involves more than the "article count"... 

message: Hi, on this thread on VP a related question was asked. Suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More recent information

message: The Usenet section is now a whole decade out of date. The era of Usenet is over, anyway; we're long past the point where it was helpful to use in any kind of analysis. I propose that we remove this section. If nobody's objected after a while, I'll do it. — Scott • talk 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As there's been no objection in the last two months, this is now done. — Scott • talk 11:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usenet section should go 

message: If anyone has the correct qualifications (I know I don't), these should all be reevaluated, or at least the graphs should be redone. There are lots of really interesting graphs (i.e. the one with edits/page) that haven't been updated in 2-6 years. This shouldn't be too difficult for someone with access to the data and the ability to graph it. It would also allow a little bit more investigation as to whether the latest models (Gompertz/Refined Gompertz) continue to predict wiki's growth. Jacob Cutts (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is 2018 (almost 2019), and I think this article should be updated again. At the moment, it is sitting at 2015. WinterSpw (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  In January 2018 I made an update (with rough figures), but I stopped updating my graphs, as the graphs seems quite predictable by now. Mabey you can find updated stats on stats.wikimedia.org. HenkvD (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Updated Graphs/Models 

message: This part of the article talks about a study from 2009 of the expected grownth of Wikipedia, but it was not updated with when the free enciclopedia arrived at those marks. I tried updating the part about the 3 million article mark with info from wikistats, but I do not understand how to calculate the grownt midpoint and whether it happened in 2011. Could someone help updating that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turoopzie (talk • contribs) 09:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-growth model not updated. 

message: This recent article i found in the Wikipedia:List of academic studies about Wikipedia present a model of a possible future growth of Wikipedia while also explaining the different growing trends that we have seen until now. For what I have read I think it can be used to improve this page because even if it's not properly a Wikipedia modelling article, but an article that apply a generic model to Wikipedia's growth, it seems to describe Wikipedia's growth future in a very plausible way.
It's also Open Access therefore I think we could use the figures if it helps. 
I will try to update the page myself in a few months if I have not received any answer or no one has done it already. SQUB (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible model of Wikipedia's future growth