On 26 July 2012 18:19, Martin Peeks <martin...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Charles Matthews
>> The English Wikipedia is indeed the flagship, still. I believe the >> Spanish Wikipedia gets the second-largest number of readers. But the >> figure for editors given at Wikimania was 80,000 across all projects, >> and the proportion of those active on the English Wikipedia in a >> significant way would be about 5%, I think. So in terms of the >> movement as a whole, enWP drama is not actually more than a cable >> channel? >> >> Charles > > Possibly worldwide, on aggregate, yes. Does the 80,000 represent > "active" editors across all projects to the same standard of > "activity"? Can't answer the question, but the basis was for year-on-year editor figures and presumably comes out of the WMF analytics, now a team of three. > However, more importantly for the broader issue (perhaps less so for > the WCA side-line) is that for WMUK's intended (or actual/most > relevant) audience - ie UK residents - enwp is by far and away the > primary project. That's a fairer point than dragging the WCA into it. I'm tempted to say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" re enWP: those most likely to be at the OMG end of my proposed scale are those who know enough to be able to say what the ArbCom is; but not enough to know what it actually has to cope with (e.g. give some satisfaction some of the time to the guys wearing the black hats, because the system has to have integrity). Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
