Wikipedia talk:Modelling Wikipedia's growth/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Error analysis

How 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

Followup

This 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 growth

I 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).

You should have a look at parts of the curve without artifacts so you will get values of the λ in the exponential growth function N = N₀·e^λt. N may be the number of articles, links, users, traffic... (different λ and N₀ of course). Since little change of λ results in big changes in the future, better do not try to predict more than 3 years. Especially when there is a modification in article count every 18 month ;-)

See also the plot at de:Wikipedia:Statistik. There is an OpenOffice Calc or Excel chart, ask de:Benutzer:TomK32 --Nichtich 00:52 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Estimates beaten

The 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 notice

While 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 results

Wouldn'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

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.