Talk:Wikipedia article depth

Where can I find a more precise definition for the depth value? Especially:

• In (Non-Articles/Articles): Which entries are counted as non-articles (user pages, other portals like Wiktionary etc.)?
• Is the Stub-ratio increasing or decreasing with a higher quote of stubs?

--JFKCom 10:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

I was wondering the same. What are the exact definitions for this formula? Samulili 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I try to answer this to the best of my knowledge, but I am not involved in any way in determining depth, so I could be wrong:

The values are derived from Special:Statistics.

non-articles is the second row "Pages" - articles

stub-ratio is just "first row/second row", so it's not really a measure of what we normally know as "stubs", but it is the relation of "articles" (in the definition of "no redirect, at least one link") to all pages. --::Slomox:: >< 16:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

One correction: stub-ratio is "first row/second row", but the formula calculates with "1 - first row/second row". Information can also be found at http://s23.org/wiki/User_talk:Mutante. --::Slomox:: >< 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Many thanks for these hints! Now I understand. In fact, depth is depending on the following quantities:

• "good": number of "content pages", i.e. proper articles
• "total": number of pages in the wiki, including discussion pages, redirects etc.
• "nonarticles": total - good
• "edits": number of total edits in the wiki

And the formula is: (edits / good) * nonarticles ^ 2 / (total * good).

Now I also understand, why the results of the depth value are as erratic as evident from the statistical tables. In my opinion, the two main bugs in this formula are:

• (1) "edits" are edits on all articles counted for "total", "good" are a subset: A more reasonable quotient would be "edits / total".
• (2) The influence of "nonarticles" is valued with an at least quadratic measure, whereas "edits" are valued with a linear measure.

Issue (2) is especially important, because "nonarticles" is essentially a measure of "overhead" more than "maturity" of a wiki, as laid down by others in past discussions. For example, a wiki in which obsolete discussion pages or orphaned user pages are deleted, shrinks its depth, while retaining these useless contents conserves the depth value.

My proposal for a new depth formula: (edits / total) * (size_in_kB / total)

I am aware of the disatvantages of using size_in_kB (UTF code length etc.), but in my opinion the proposed formula supports more adequate results. --JFKCom 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

×ばつ_(Non-Articles/Articles)">It always seems to me that the formula includes ×ばつ (Non-Articles/Articles). Since non-articles don't actually create useful content, and the articles are the goal, we could just as easily call it x (Bureaucracy/Content).

Wouldn't content-ratio (i.e., x (article pages/total pages)) be better? Almafeta ×ばつ_(Non-Articles/Articles)">03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC) ×ばつ_(Non-Articles/Articles)">Reply ×ばつ_(Non-Articles/Articles)">

You could also easily call it ×ばつ (Images+Templates+Talk)/Articles) which is a positive metric since it measures the wiki's maturity. Your change would mean starting a Talk page or adding InfoBox for an article may reduce the wiki's depth. Also, a bot that just adds articles will increase the depth of the wiki. --MarsRover 02:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether "(Non-Articles/Articles)" or "(article pages/total pages)" is used. Both measures are seriously flawed and can only give a very rough indication about the state of a wiki. --::Slomox:: >< 16:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Here's the final word. The most essential thing about Wikipedia is that it's COMMUNITY-based. "Wikipedian quality" (as Depth is most concisely defined) means how lively the COMMUNITY behind each Wikipedia is. Therefore, this part of the formula, far from referring to "unuseful content", is actually essential. Again: Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia. That is, it's made of BOTH articles AND people (editors) with personal pages. AND their respective talk pages. IOW, the Depth formula is article+community-oriented.

If you are narrowly devoted to pure article-orientedness (like pragmatic purpose-oriented and people-objectifying pre/anti-open_source Luddites and retro-tarded Britannica-worshiping snobs), and "[s]ince ... the articles are the goal", simply ignore the volunteer community and its "bureaucratic" Depth column and watch the article count column only, but let us watch the extent and Depth to which our "seriously flawed" community (or "bureaucracy") do their talk and work. The Depth formula does need change, but positive change. So you are clueless.

If this still doesn't make much sense to you, please stick to aol://britannica.com before it goes bankrupt. You'll get articles only, no bureaucracy. Thank you.

(Don't worry about my tone, it was just a rant.)

87.116.33.73 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

What exactly is the formula for Stub-ratio? --MarsRover 02:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

See above. --::Slomox:: >< 16:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

the depth is not updated automatically it seems, if this is the case then how often is it updated, weekly, monthly or what? Thanks--Ramsis II 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Reply

In my opinion the images should not be counted in the depth computation because in an ideal Wikipedia all their images should be stored in Commons. Best regards, Alpertron 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

• 08:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Kanuri: 1 article, depth = 359870
  • Muskogee - 2 articles, depth = 62867
  • Afar - 6 articles, depth = 96140
  • ...
  • Cree - 116 articles, depth = 1541
  • Lak - 109 articles, depth = 1431
  • ...
  • Burmese - 31760 articles, depth = 1421
  • Sinhalese - 3696 articles, depth = 4642
  • Gilaki| - 5959 articles, depth = 1295
  • ...
  • Citizendium... ?? :)

Non-Article pages... Przykuta 08:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Reply

This should be part of the definition "Depths above 300 for Wikipedias below 100 000 articles have been automatically dismissed as irrelevant." --MarsRover 20:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Reply

Ru:Состояние на 2008-2009 годы кочует из одной википедии в другую, производя гнетущее впечатление. Может, удалить?--AndreyA 09:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC) En:Delete table.--AndreyA 09:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Reply