Wikipedia

Ettrig

Joined 4 June 2008

Ettrig is a Swedish word which translates into either of hot-tempered, fiery, irascible, peppery, vitriolic, violent or furious, depending on context.

Subpage: User:Ettrig/FA pageview trends

Proudly Received Praise

edit

biology
Thank you, fiery Swedish user, for quality contributions to quality articles such as Biology, serving millions, for gnomish work in stub sorting, page moves, corrections, fighting waste of space, for clarification, for joy and missing, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ask for illustrations

edit

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop

The value of edits and articles

edit
  • Length of edit
  • Addition or removal
  • Page views for article
  • Quality of article
  • Number of interwiki links (indirect viewers via translation)
  • Length of article (diminishing returns, there is a tendency to add the most important facts first)
  • Position in article (many probably read only in beginning (the lead is important)
  • Clicks (a click on a link in an article shows some engagement, we could measure that by rigging the links to feed back to Wikipedia)

All of the above should be used to feed back to editors what the real value of their efforts is.

Valiews

edit

The value of views.

The value of Wikipedia is generated when people download and look at the articles. One such download does not detract from the value of another one. Thus the value of downloads is additive, and because of this the value of an article is at least proportional to the number of page views it generates. The way Wikimedia allocates resources is consistent with this principle. A large part of the cost of maintaining the support system is proportional to the number of pageviews. Wikimedia is willing to pay this cost, because it corresponds to the value of the service received by the readers.

The value of the download is greater the more interesting the article is to the consumer. At the same time, each download is a vote, showing that this consumer considers this subject of interest. So the more downloaded articles can be assumed to be more interesting and more valuable per download. This means that the value of an article is more than proportional to the page views. And the range of pageviews is in itself enormous, from a few hundred in a month, to several millions.

Another indicator of importance of a subject is the ocurrence of interwiki links. Each such link shows that someone took the time to write an article about it and someone made that link. This vote costs much more than a page view. The interwiki link is also an indicator that good material may be translated and included in another wikipedia.

Because of this it is extremely valuable if the good writers can be stimulated to choose subjects that the readers are interested in. Many featured articles are read a few hundred times in a month. There is a large number of articles that are read a few hundred thousand times per month. The difference in value is more than a factor of one thousand. Wikipedia should strive to use what incentives it has to guide the editors towards the more valuable subjects. The system that evaluates and celebrates the highest quality articles has no such tendency at all. Most likely it has the opposite tendency. Defenders of the existing system and its criticisers agree that it is more difficult to achieve the highest quality for a valuable article, yet the recognition is the same.

I suggest that we at least set a limit for how little interest there may be in a subject that can have a celebrated featured article. If we multiply the number of page views for an article over a year with the number of interwiki links in it, we get a value that rises with the value of the subject. We can sort the articles according to this value. I think that if an article shall be celebrated as featured, it should at least be about one of the 400 000 most interesting subjects. These 10% of the articles account for about 80% of the pageviews. With this article sorting, we can generate a list of applicable articles. We don't even need the list. We can set the limit by a value for the product of page views and interwiki links. If an article has a product that is below that value, then it cannot be a featured article, because it cannot have a value that is worth celebrating.

The primary way to gain recognition in the Wikipedia community is to produce featured articles. The process to identify featured articles however, does not consider impact. How can it be that impact, which is considered so important for recognition in the scientific world, is seen as completely irrelevant in Wikipedia?

Search for information

edit

Hey guys try this search engine: http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=little+tunny&t=all&drill=yes&sort=0&p=180 , it generated an impressive number of legit sites for the little tunny.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Good ref on species.[1]

NC AP Biology edits

Template:Lead too short

Search for poor language

edit

Klik bilou! Tejk a walk on the dark syde ov Wikipedia.

Mispelings

edit

Commonly misspelled words abandonement accessable adaptaion appearring avaliable carear comitted commited exeption inconsistant tution proceeded succeded

Waste of space

edit

Microevolution for Good Topic

edit

I had the view that Evolution ought to be developed into a good topic. There were already several Featured Articles in the subject area. But the evolution of this subject is in the direction of degradation. Introduction to Evolution was featured but is now neither featured nor good. Natural selection was good, but isn'nt any longer. Also, it is very difficult to constrain the topic to a reasonable number of articles.

My new less ambitious goal is that Microevolution becomes a good topic. My view is that it includes the articles:

Good Articles

edit

Wikipedia:Good_articles

Improve History of botany

  • Change in number of recognized species: 10K => 300K
  • More on how evolution changed thinking on systematics
  • How molecular systematics changed views of phylogeny
  • Conflict between traditional systematics and evolution based
  • Changes in views on what should and shouldn't be included botany: Algae, diverse protista, green algae, fungi, cyanobacteria.

Stuff to come back to

edit

Farmer-managed natural regeneration

User talk:WWB Too, to discuss paied editing.

Valerie Jarrett, Oh-Hyun Kwon, Kevin Systrom, Palaniappan Chidambaram, Ren Zhengfei, Gina Rinehart, Tadashi Yanai, Sam Yagan, David Einhorn, Ted Sarandos, John Brennan, Wayne LaPierre, Kamala Harris, Fethullah Gulen, Wilfredo De Jesús, Alex Atala, Miguel, Jenna Lyons, George Saunders, Andrew Ng, Daphne Koller, Hannah Gay, Katherine Luzuriaga, Deborah Persaud, Bassem Youssef, Joaquim Barbosa, Vrinda Grover, Perry Chen, Roya Mahboob, David Coleman, Travis Tygart, Eric Greitens, Andrew Sheng, Don Yeomans, Jared Cohen, Christopher Fabian, Erica Kochi, Kimberly Blackwell, Kai-Fu Lee, Mary Nichols, Peter Theisinger, Richard Cook, Omotola Jalade-Ekeinde

User:Grondemar/Essays/FAC/Customer expectations and process capability

10% FA User talk:Alarbus

Since I have never found the Featured Portal ideal for browsing good articles unless one has a field in mind, and is not lazy, and since the Random article is unsatisfactory for the reader in throwing up stubs and poor articles, I think the addition of two more links will greatly improve reader experience of Wikipedia.

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-featured.php — Random Featured article

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-good.php — Random Good article

<references>

  1. ^ de Queiroz K (2005). "Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (Suppl 1): 6600–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502030102. PMC 1131873. PMID 15851674. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ettrig&oldid=1146233968"