What is Digg?72 Comments
- Vindexus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+54English Wikipedia Hits 2,000,000 Articles [citation needed]
- Garfunkel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+36Stop bashing wikipedia you douche bags. How many times have we wanted to know something about anything and the best and easiest place to go is wikipedia?
If you don't like it, don't post. - pixelfox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29Even I, as a Wikipedia admin, find it sad there are more pages on Wikipedia dealing *with* wikipedia then there are actual articles.
- tdp301, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23The 2,000,000th article was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Hormiguero
according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Milestone_Wikipedia_articles - Whiteknight117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23What was the 2 millionth article?
- nerd05, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15yeah, you open Safari and go to en.wikipedia.org.
- iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13That was neither funny nor trollful.
I just don't get it. - Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13If you wrote a program to do this, why did you stop at 100 articles?
- OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12It seems you have other things on your mind.
- Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Sorry, forgot to escape...
perl -e 'for(0..999) {my $text = `curl -L "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random"`; $count++ if $text =~ /<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">/;} print $count/1000;'
I got 411 out of 1000 articles were stubs. - dartmanx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Never tell me the odds.
- TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I wrote a program for my statistics project last year that found the number of stubs on Wikipedia (measured by the inclusion of the "This article is a stub" tag) using Wikipedia's random article feature and found that about 37% of articles were stubs (with a 95% confidence interval of .2753 to .4646). I just ran it again and got a proportion of .44 (95% CI = .3427 - .5373). My sample size was 100 in both cases.
- Phlosten, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I think I need a new shredder, that damn Microsoft Encarta CD got jammed. ;)
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7In Unreal Tournament:
2 kills: Player's name: DOUBLE-KILL!!!
5 kills: Player's name IS ON A KILLING SPREE!!!
6 kills: Player's name IS ON A RAMPAGE!!!
7 kills: Player's name IS DOMINATING!!!
8 kills: Player's name IS UNSTOPPABLE!!!
10 kills: Player's name IS GODLIKE!!! - TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Because I didn't want to use a bunch of Wikipedia's bandwidth, and 100 is a large enough sample for good statistical analysis
- smellinator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6At least it wasn't Wiki-Spam, like was attempted back at the One Million mark.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squidoo
- memoBug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7>English Wikipedia Hits 2,000,000 Articles
I had no idea there were so many Pokemon characters! - barktwiggs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You were still within MOE on the 2nd run. I know it'd take a while to do it 1067 times, but that would get you the magical +-3% figure. Very good nonetheless. Yay stats!
- Darkhacker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If it's on the internet, then it must be true.
- dunderballer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Who would of thought the internet community could come together and create something so expansive, useful, and usually accurate? As someone else once said "It is amazing that it is not all garbage"
- Phlosten, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If you treat Wikipedia as your only source of information you are truly an idiot. If you want to produce credible references you must verify everything through multiple sources. This is true of everything whether it be Wikipedia or not.
I treat Wikipedia as a really big yellow pages/abridged version of information. Great for a quick run down on the info and to help point you in the right direction, and the credible stuff usually provides links to other existing websites as reference. The great big stepping stone of information on the net.
Keep rocking on Wikipedia. - MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Eh, it's just like the real government. There's more propping it up than actual output. It's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on your political philosophy.
- monikerd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4stubs are useful too imho.
that those stats are interesting too sure. but stubs aren't just a way to crank up statistics imho,
they make disambiguation pages more complete. they are often short but do link to the website and describe in short what it is.
and anyhow wikipedia is going great! congrats to us all. - t0mmy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How about number of articles, excluding stubs? Not Wiki-bashing, just wondering if there's a statistic somewhere for this, as that'd be a better benchmark.
- TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3btw, the probability of this difference happening by random chance is .31
- Crisender111, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Wikipedia's success is really sweet. 3 Cheers!
- memoBug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Further research reveals only 19,000 Pokemon references in wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/3xjycb
Dig me down for inaccuracy.
:( - dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Microsoft will start claiming Wikipedia is infringing on its intellectual property rights and declare you as a pirate. They happen have patents on storing text in a database.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I use Wikipedia a lot but I also realize that almost all Wikipedia articles have some bad information in them
- Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Here's a perl one-liner to do this. I'm running it right now and it'll be done in a few minutes.
perl -e 'for(0..999) {my $text = `curl -L "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random"`; $count++ if $text =~ //;} print "nn",$count/1000,"nn";' - Adenosine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow, I first visited Wikipedia when it's 200,000th article was announced on Slashdot 5 years ago, amazing success!
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unless it's something like JStor or other paper->online journal aggregators.
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -0/+2Close, but not quite. You forgot about Ultra Kill and Multi Kill. In UT2K4:
Level 2: Double Kill - 2 Kills
Level 3: Multi Kill - 3 Kills
Level 4: Mega Kill - 4 Kills
Level 5: Ultra Kill - 5 Kills
Level 6: Monster Kill - 6 Kills
Level 7: Ludicrous Kill - 7 Kills
Level 8: Holy ***** Kill - 8 Kills - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You could have saved your time by counting the number of articles in here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stub_categories ... and dividing by 2 million.
or you could have gone here and put the divide key on your calculator to good use.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm - quakeIII, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1MacEnvy has 4 out of 6 lines wrong (last 4) and still gets dugg up. Nice work guys. When i suggested that "Unstoppable" was in Unreal Tournament (99, 2003, 2004) I meant exactly that. Look at my name... Do you still think that I don't know what I am talking about?
- Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No.. it's in intervals of 5. 5 Kills is a killing spree, 10 kills is a rampage, 15 kills is dominating, 20 kills is unstoppable, and 25 is Godlike.
Then you have the 2 kills in short time-span = double, 3 = multi, ultra kill = 4 kills and monster kill = 5 kills
From UT1 - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are plenty of online medical journals, edjiot. The means of publishing doesn't affect accuracy.
- Jeffler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll give you credit, that was one hell of a reply!
- SpikeZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
This article has been tagged since September 2007." - razz8806, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1actually, i would argue strong to the contrary. wikipedia rocks at science. im not saying you should ever cite it in a thesis or research paper, but its a great place to get a good understanding of a lot of subjects. for example, i came out of my materials lecture today and i learned a lot more from the wikipedia article on buckling than wha i learned in lecture. and sadly, it was an MIT lecture. regardless, Wikipedia is good at science
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Even if that was true (and of course it is sarcasm), if you checked back in an hour or asked on the discussion page (which is recommended if you see something suspicious on a major page), it would likely be fixed.
- mastertop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1woah, that's cool... strange syntax though
- Phlosten, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Especially that comment. :)
- edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Exactly. Wikipedia is great as a starting point in research, but anyone with half a brain knows secondary sources are to be taken with a grain of salt.
- edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Does anyone remember the episode of Futurama where the big giant brain was going to scan all the information in the Universe, and then destroy it? Coincidence? ;)
- Topher06, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Can someone find a second source for this, you know, to be accurate.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is