Talk:Swedish Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Sweden (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Article count graph[edit]

The article count graph seems to be 30 months old. Are there any tools for rendering a more updated version? - Tournesol (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Make that 36 months. - Tournesol (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, now that seems to have been fixed (long overdue). :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Almost 51 months now. Boivie (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info[edit]

I am restoring what looks to me like sufficiently sourced info about users who have left the project, rm by a Swedish Wikipedian. Would be interesting to get som neutral input. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Do those numbers stand out compared to other Wikipedias or why are those numbers chosen when there are other more prominent reasons? That information is not neutrally written as it is now and is an example of cherry picking. The source does not compare the numbers to other Wikipedias and state several other reasons as more prominent. That the discussion pages are in little use are not stated in the source you (by restoring) and Boeing720 (originally) gave. There is also a mix-up of cause and correlation there. On SvWp there are fewer meta pages compared to the number of articles but that does not make the use of the discussion pages the cause of low article depth. It is not even stated in the source if there are little use of the discussion pages. So not even the correlation is sourced. Also please don't argue in person, that I do edit an SvWp should not be more relevant then that both you and Boeing720 have been blocked there. --Averater (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant that you are one of the weightiest users at Swedish Wikipedia, when you waltz in here and rm sourced criticism from this article. The problems at Swedish Wikipedia have become common knowledge now, so it's no use trying to supress that info. With no WP:Harassment, there, no rules against WP:Outing, and no method for WP:Conflict resolution (and no interest in those subjects at all on the part of the most powerful admininstrators or your Swedish Chairman), what can we expect? Smooth sailing?
The question here is whether or not the sources for the info are sufficient. That's all. We need neutral input on that. Why not wait for it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
3O request One of you folks requested a third opinion, so here I am. Just FYI this is not a binding process, and my word carries the same weight as any other editor: so if this does not address your disagreement, I would suggest opening an RFC. Ordinarily, I would argue that a source such as the one in question is not a reliable source: it is primary, and has little editorial oversight. However, in the text in question, in-text attribution is being provided, and the publisher is wikimedia itself, suggesting that we can make an exception. Furthermore, I notice that the source is still being used, to support a different statistic. This is definitely a case of cherrypicking. Either the source is reliable in this context, or not: if it is used to support a statistic about lack of time, then it can most certainly be used to support other statistics from the same source. Vanamonde (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Vanamonde93. I do not object to the source being used but to use it to only select three of the mentioned causes of the ones in the source. Ether we include the biggest, all or none. As it were before with the claim that 33% had one of three picked reasons was not sourced at all. As the respondents could have given more than one reason that number could be anything from 11% to 33% and that sum was not in the source. --Averater (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I too thank you for the useful WP:3O comment. It's always very helpful to use 3O for a neutral opinion (sadly the service has been deleted as unwanted at Swedish WP). I also now see that the article text has been adjusted satisfactorily as per the source, at about the same time as I wrote my last comment. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The "sourced" information is from a graph posted on Wikimedia Commons by a student while writing a master thesis at the Royal Institute of Technology, posted before the thesis was completed. The graph does not have an explanation as to how the percentages were calculated or what they actually mean. The eventual masters thesis is quite interesting, but neither the graph nor the information in the graph is included in the thesis (maybe for good reasons). Nor are they mentioned in the essay "published" by Wikimedia Sweden, where there is just a link to the graph. By looking at the raw data from the survey, it is clear that the underlying population that the percentages are calculated for only include a small proportion that have left the project, while the vast majority are occasional editors. Hence, the text is factually wrong, as the percentages are not about former contributors that have left. This is a prime example why wikipedia should not use primary sources that are unpublished or self-published or published without editorial oversight. In summary, I argue that a source such as the one in question is not a reliable source: it is primary, and has little editorial oversight, and the fact that Wikimedia Commons is the "publisher" does not make it any more reliable. I have removed the information. Martinogk (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
It's quite clear to me why anything negative about Swedish Wikipedia would be excluded in anything published by Wikimedia Sweden. You? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleansing an article about oneself from embarrassing facts[edit]

An administrator from Swedish Wikipedia has been busy lately removing embarrassing facts here. And adding other facts more flattering to h own project. All of the facts - the ones removed and the ones added - and almost all of the article is unsourced. Shouldn't we remove just about everything, rather than letting propagandistic bias dominate the article, unsourced? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have different standards for uncontroversial information and embarrassing "facts". Especially in this article, where Wikipedians probably have a quite good sense about what sounds probable, the risk of major errors not being spotted is quite low. But when such errors are spotted, should they not be removed? For controversial information, we need good sources. What parts of the article in the current version are controversial? (I reinserted info on longtime admins, I hope you can provide the source for the statistics) --LPfi (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
As a Swede "Swedish-speaking Finn mostly active on the Wikipedia in Swedish" yourself, you might or might not find bragging about your language project controversial or uncontroversial, and so you may or may not think we need any sources at all for anything like that. What would be great to have here is neutral (non-Swedish) input. If anybody's even interested. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
As clearly indicated by his/her user page, LPfi is not a Swede. In any case, that kind of argument is not valid here as it's clearly ad hominem. /Grillo (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I lay down my head in shame at that horrifying error of mine - have adjusted my comment accordingly to placate you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if you are writing about me or yger. However, 12% is not a large group. Thats why I removed it (is it negative to have a stable group of admins? And they are selected anually, so they are respected by svwp) Adville (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
My many years of experience would replace your word "respected" with "feared". People there know there is no WP:Dispute resolution on that project, no rules against WP:HARASS or WP:OUT, so yes "feared" is a better choice of words, in my opinion. I get nervous just seeing some of you drop in for rare visits on enWP to support each other the way you all collaborate (same peeps years after year) on svWP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It would probably be easier for you if you didn't spend your time filling this article with your personal bias and attack people just for being active on svwp. /Grillo (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
As a man of many years of (very unpleasant) experience with you, I can't think of anything less interesting to me, nor to this page, than advice like that from you. Gee, I wish you'd stay away, but that's just one man's frightened opinion. Besides, my contributions to this article have been so miniscule that your attack on them seems a waste of time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

POV from exile Swede[edit]

I would like to have some help to sort out if User:Boeing720 has a POV-agend, or COI in this article. He adds the following part to the entry of the article (I have moved it here during the discussion):

  • "- and has the lowest article depth of all larger[quantify] Wikipedias (with exception of Cebuano, a language spoken in parts of the Philipphines[1]). Article depth is a statistical measure of the collaborative quality of Wikipedias. The Swedish Wikipedia is in that regard the opposite of English Wikipedia. As of October 2017, the Swedish Wikipedia has a (unitless) value of 5, whilst the English Wikipedia has a value close to 1000.[2] Further, the article depth at the Swedish Wikipedia has fallen every year since 2012.[3]"


Because he started to do this edits almost in the same time as his friend user:SergeWoodzing is discussed on COI I kindly asks User:Domdeparis and User:Fyddlestix to look into this matter too. I'm sorry that you have been draged into this infected part of the Swedish language Wikipedia like this, but hopefully you after this all is solved better will understand how we have been thinking and why we acted as we did.

  • First of all both these two users are permanently blocked on svwp. I was only involved in SW, not Boeing's block.
  • Second: It is true the article depth has been lowered since 2012, so the statistics does not lie, but the cause of the lowered article depth is not what Boeing is telling in the text (taken from here). However that explanation is incorrect on Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedia because of user:Lsj and his Lsjbot. (How bots are changing the statistics is discussed on the meta page here). It is not a secret that when svwp hit 1 milion articles 454 000 were created by Lsjbot (see its article), alomost half of the articles had only article depth 1!!! That changes the statistics a lot, but the colaboration and discussions before the project is not visible ther. When Wall street jounal wrote it's article about Lsjbot it had created 2.7 milion articles during 2 years (on different wikis, but mostly on Swedish and Cebuano).
  • Third: This is, as you can see in the above discussions not the first time both Boeing and SW have been arguing in this article about statistics and how "Swedish wikipedians are harrasing them and trying to erase everything negative about svwp".

Because I do not want to start an edit war I kindly ask for help from neutral users here. Adville (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that he originally added the following, the above was after I cleaned it up to fix bad English and a blatant opinion:
"- and has the lowest article depth of all larger Wikis. Article Depths are science-mathematical measures on the collaborative quality of all Wikipedia. Swedish Wikipedia is in that sense a total opposite of English Wikipedia. The trend is also very worring, in 2002 had Swedish Wikipedia (the unitless) value of 50, English had 648. Today has Swedish Wikipedia fallen to 5, whilst English Wikipedia has increased to 998. [1]"
Another problematic edit from a problematic editor who I'm not surprised to find out is blocked from the Swedish Wikipedia. "Worring" indeed. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


I have no personal knowledge about Serge Woodzing. I have never met him, don't have a clue about his whereabouts. I'm not blocked as SW:WIKI, but resigned, and that has SW:WIKI also told me later. It was 7-8 years ago by now.
About the article Jacob_Truedson_Demitz have I just written what I think. He is not THE most famous person in Sweden. But was known through commercial television around 1995-2010 , and apparently has Demitz also written books on the Swedish Royalties. For instance Pål Hollender is a very much similar case, while for instance Torkild Strandberg isn't known at all, except in Landskrona a 30.000 people Swedish town.
Swedish Wikipedia stands out, undoubtably, in Wikimedias mathematic-scientific measurement of every Wikipedia's collaborative quality - and according to the trend has an already very low value decreased even further during the last five years. (Long after my resign there) Just have a look at the talk-pages there ! They are certainly not used the way they are used here! But as they are facts, according to Wikimedia, don't I believe we should introduce censorship here! By Wikimedia standards has SW:WIKI a very poor collaborative quality, it's as simple as that ! Totally regardless of what bot/bots that's in use at SW:WIKI. We have "bots" here as well, I presume. Why not begin to improve the Collaborative quality instead of hiding it ? Wikimedia has defined the formula, not I ! (Cebuano wasn't introduced by me originally). And many other of our other articles on other Wikipedias tell about their Article Depth status too. In a nutshell, Adville - you are complaining about Wikimedia's measuring , and ought to put this complaint there. (Or, perhaps better, improve SW:WIKI's collaborative quality.) Boeing720 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
And Adville's "new article depth" here isn't helping him either. It appears to be 5-6 years old - and another method increased SW:WIKI's value, from 48 to 150 - or 3 times higher value, but this Wiki went from 607 to 86700, which became 142 times higher. No help for SW:WIKI there. Have you no newer list of this kind ?
Perhaps they just would reveal the same pattern, no matter how Wikimedia will make the calculation of Article Depths as a measurement for collaborative quality, will SW:WIKI stands out. Boeing720 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, we do not use any censorship here, not even regarding negative criticism on English Wikipedia. A similar example, taken from our Wikipedia administrators info page, reveals "In 2006, The New York Times reported that administrators on Wikipedia, of whom there were then about 1,000, were "geographically diverse". In July 2012, it was widely reported that Wikipedia was "running out of administrators", because in 2005 and 2006, 40 to 50 people were often appointed administrators each month, but in the first half of 2012, only nine in total were appointed" etc. Boeing720 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Censorship and halftruths are different things... and here you are using halftruths because you do not like svwp. Can I get a second opinion from a neutral user? Adville (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
let us discuss this before you put it back. We need a neutral user. I delete your edit again. Adville (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of opinion, solely on facts. Article Depth are mentioned in many articles on other Wikipedias. The Swedish one simply stands out. Hiding that fact is censorship, ,as it has become noted. Boeing720 (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Boeing720's most recent comment and (and) with Adville's that we need the opinions of neutral users, which I am not in this case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I havnt yet been able to take in the entire story behind this, but if any adminstrator from Swedish Wikipedia is applying any type of local "consensus" regarding censorship of this page in the EnWiki, I would most probably protest against that, but before that, I would like to ask for diffs and links to any sort of local Swedish consensus regarding this subject, and eventually links to discussions on EnWiki, where the EnWiki community has supported such actions as described above. In general, if any local wiki has any kind of disfunctional democrazy process, or internal problems, I find it is very important that this does not infect other language sections of Wikipedia, and if a minority of users have gained power over a wiki, through different kind of strategic administration elections and such, for sure this should not automatically make it easy for them to extend their powers to other language projects. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Dan Koehl, I have no hidden agenda. You'll not fond a discussion about this here or in svwp. It is Only me trying to make a user not write pov. You know about the impact of AD average lsjbot made. Thats all... Adville (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, @Adville:, this makes it a lot easier to overlook. Does it mean, that you delete comments from other users here on EnWiki, just as a personal act, not backed up from anyone on SvWiki? And when your opinion is different from other users, you simply delete their comments, have I understood this right? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
What? I do not delete others comments in discussions. Explain. I erased pov in this article. Movedit here (transpiracy) and discussef it. Ett do you cause me för censoring like that? Adville (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not accusing anyone, I asked you questions above. In general though, I have seen indications of "ownership" in this article, and have experienced how my sourced edits was removed, see diff 8 April 2014 and diff 25 Nov 2015, as far as I can see because someone wanted to hide the fact that I initiated the move by high-producing users to swedish Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

To write the number for the article depth I see no problems. It is your explanation of it I am opposing. That is two different things. Adville (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is it you oppose ? Any comparing to other Wikipedias ? What article depth actually measures ? Or what ? I'm not against expressing the large utilization of "bots". We don't need to use a word like "problem", whatever you like. Pure and simple facts solely. Sadly this happens to include a "poor collaborative quality", at least compared to all other 1.000.000+ article Wikipedias, except Cebuano - as of Wikimedia definition. Hiding such facts is nothing but censorship. Boeing720 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Boeing720 here that it is appropriate to mention the article depth figure and compare it to other Wikipedias. My objection was mainly to several relatively minor things about his original version. 1) it was inaccurate in stating the Swedish Wikipedia had the worst AD 2) it did not specify what "larger Wikipedias" meant 3) it used the nonsense term "science-mathematical" rather than "statistical" 4) it said the trend was "worrying" (actually "worring" but I assume that meant worrying or worrisome) which is a clear opinion
I think it would definitely make sense to point out that Lsjbot is the cause of the low AD. It's not as much "bots", although apparently multiple bots have contributed to it; rather, both Cebuano and Swedish are clobbered overrun expanded by a huge number of stub articles from Lsjbot. Otherwise mentioning the AD figure in this way is misleading and makes it sound like the human-generated portion of the Swedish Wikipedia has this problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
—DIYeditor, I would say you totaly agree with me. That is exsctly what I mean. That is also the problem with the edits by Boeing. Own opinion hidden in än Old explanation from Wikipedia. It might have been true, but as I have studied some statistics. At the university I would say no. Just look at the COI discussions. The are about bad cooperations with maybe 30 edits in one discussion. I would not fall that a positive discussion... His explanation fails and is not looking at lsjbot. Adville (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The bots are already explained. But if the use of them causes low AD, is that still "poor collaborative quality" per Wikimedia definition. But nothing prevents a deeper explanation of it all. Including the human-generated portion of the Swedish Wikipedia, if we have reliable sources for them. OK ? Boeing720 (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No. We had a lot of discussions on different discussion pages before and During the Projects of lsjbot. Just looking at the numbers and say as you do is pov pushing. I still want a second opinion from non swedes about this. Adville (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you please give us a link to the discussion in question, as you refer to it. Boeing720 (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Right now Im sittning at Bergamo with a bad cellphone connection but I'll do my best. I have Three links for you. The geography project for lsjbot is missing.

Enjoy. Adville (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm honnestly not certain what you want to prove. Are you saying "There's indeed a good use of SWWIKI talk-pages", and give examples in order to show us this ? Or is it something else you think the provided links supports ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Haha, funny. I Said we har hur cooperatr discussions first and then lsjbot starter to create the articles with for now mostly 1 or 2 in article depth (which made the statistics change dramaticaly even if it was a huge cooperation). You asked me to give the links. I did and Now you wonders why I gave it to you? Ok. Stop this pseudo debate then. Let others who understand statistics give their input. Adville (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I had certainly no intention of being funny. Yes I asked for the links, as you mentioned them. But what they prove in the context of the Wikimedia Article Depth measurements is still unclear to me. Could you please explain what you think the provided links (= talk-page discussions at Swedish Wikipedia about the introduction of the bots) has to do with this article ? And if you want to discuss statistics and statistic math, we most certainly can do so. But at this talk-page ? Could you, just for instance, not just tell me, but also explain the probability for 0,1,2,3..11,12 and 13 correct signs; home win (= 1)/ draw (= X) / away win (=2); at the Swedish Stryktipset as if it was a lottery instead, without the skill factor. And all the probabilities ? I can, and without any larger difficulties. If you assumed I know nothing about statistics, you really have had bad luck. Stick to the issue, and don't talk down to me ! What do you really mean the links prove in this context we are discussing ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that there might be problematic the introduction of that statement by Boeing720. While it is currently de facto correct, it comes from a primary source, and, in the spirit of Wikipedia policies, we want some external source for citing critics to some subject. As a personal opinion, I'd say also that the "article depth" is a user-defined measuring way to compare wikis, and it is far from perfect and not at all objective. Citing that Meta article: "The depth or editing depth of Wikipedia is one of several possible rough indicators of the encyclopedia's collaborative quality, showing how frequently its articles are updated.
    It does not refer to academic quality, which cannot be computed, but to Wikipedian quality, i.e. the depth of collaborativeness—a descriptor that is highly relevant for a Wikipedia.
    " — I think it speaks for itself. A wiki might be of a high quality even without an intensive use of talk pages or high frequency of editing articles (many articles, if written well at the creation time, even does not require later edits). XXN, 18:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
No, article depth has nothing to do with academic quality, that's why it's explained. But the collaborative quality stands out just as much as the number of articles. Beside the point but still, if the meta-data on article depth is primary, then the number of articles also is primary. Especially in a case like this Wiki (and Cebuano etc) are the article depth and the number of articles extremely related. But not so few of our other articles on other Wikipedias uses Wikimedia meta data including the article depth. You can't impose a different agenda for a certain Wikipedia but not for others. Boeing720 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment here. What do the secondary sources say? --John (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
For figures (both regarding article numbers and article depth) I assume there are no secondary NPOV sources at all. Boeing720 (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The numbers are not the problem. It is your explanation of it that is not neutral. Adville (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
John asked for secondary sources. So for you Adville again - For figures (both regarding article numbers and article depth) I assume there are no secondary NPOV sources at all. Could we begin there ? I have replied twice now. Do you have any secondary sources for the number of articles ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
What? Did you not understand my comment in English? I agreed with the part of your comment about numbers, but not your pov explanation. To be clear to about missunderstandings I'll tak it in swedish: "Siffrorna är inte problemet utan din vinklade förklaring" Do you have Ny neutral secondary sources that say svwp have a poor collaborative quality? Adville (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Please just answer the question, put by John. And I have clearly said that I doubt there are any secondary sources at all, for figures. Not regarding article depth, article number or number of administrators etc. As we have assistance now, we have to begin there, simple as it may sound.Boeing720 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Boeing720, you are joking, right? OR you just dont understand what is the problem here and what is not. The numbers ar just numbers by a counter (and sourced). You trust them, just like I do and everyone else in this discussion seems to do. The problem here (which you should understand after I have written it so many times and 3 other users had said I am right) is your explanation of what the numbers mean. So Do you, Boeing720 have a secondary source saying that there are a poor collaborative quality on svwp? If not you have to let it be, just like I deleted the part about admins easily being reelected if they are not in controversies (true of course, but not posible to source). Adville (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
First this statement:
"It is currently the third largest Wikipedia by article-count with its 3,788,989 current articles, where a majority are generated by a bot."
lacks secondary sources. And as you appear unwilling to begin from the point suggested by John , I will now comment your reply to me. Like XXN states, Article Depth is a rough estimation of a Wikipedia's collaborative quality, it has nothing to do with academical quality. But the word "rough", I suppose mean, that we cannot differ between two Wikipedias with for instance the values 200 and 225. But in this case and when compared to this (English) Wikipedia are those figures around 1000 vs 5. DIYeditor wrote "it is appropriate to mention the article depth figure and compare it to other Wikipedias". Boeing720 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Please. You are just like me from Sweden and a wikipedian. Instead of writing "oh, no secondary source about bots" you could first do as I did in the beginning of this discussion:check for sources. Have you read the Wall Street I linked to? That is a Good source (behind a pay wall). Google it. Lsjbot. DN was also pay wall, therefor I give you aftonbladet. Source. Happy. Found faster than your copy past and complain writing.
Rough means comparable wikis. (Built on the same principles.) English and German I Think is built by the same principles.there you can estimste maybe like you Think. Swedish and Cebuano are built by the bot principles and can therefor be compared with eachother but not with the English...
your way of thinking here (to do your best to miscredit svwp) is like comparing a tractor with a formula 1 car. Both are t wheeled. Therefor we have to say the tractor is bad... (but you forget the background)
The numbers and campare with others are ok. But your explanation is not Good and lacks secondary sources. I do not write all I explains here in the article, it is just to show you you are wrong. Adville (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Please get this. I asked for help, since we come nowhere. He asks for secondary sources. I'm not obligated to do your search. And if comparing Swedish Wikipedia with others - "the third largest Wikipedia by article-count with its 3,788,989 articles", without secondary sources, please explain why Article Depth cannot be compared as well. I don't wish to discredit, just reveal either all facts or none. As of now the article is swaggering and POV. And the article depth is not about academic quality but of collaborative quality. And all Wikipedias are measured by the same standard. It's not up to you to make any other conclusions. Are you saying this Wikipedia is a tractor and Swedish is a Formula one car ??? Boeing720 (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
And the secondary source you provided , just states "Wikipedia grows due to a bot" Boeing720 (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Please, again. I am discussing your pov-editing - not every other sentence in the article. Keep it to the matter! counters and automatic generated lists are ok sources. If you wasnt to discuss you need to do some research too. You are just trying to tireing me out here - and all who reads this too. Aftonbladet is a source for "En majoritet av de svenskspråkiga artiklarna är inte skrivna av människor utan av "robotar", det vill säga datorprogram" (majority made by bots). (added that source and the list. The counter you may add yourself as per source 4 on enwp). I ment "don not comapre two completely different things. I create a new section for your pov here under. Please only discuss your pov you want to add. Adville (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


This is the parts that are pov, and lack secondary sources and I reverted. This is what I am discussing and opose to (not the plain numbers):"Article Depths are science-mathematical measures on the collaborative quality of all Wikipedia. Swedish Wikipedia is in that sense a total opposite of English Wikipedia. The trend is also very worring..."

  • "The collaborative quality" It could roughly mean comparable wikis could be compared here too. (Built on the same principles.) English and German I think is built by the same principles.there you can estimste maybe like you Think. Swedish and Cebuano are built by the bot principles and can therefor be compared with eachother but not with the English.
  • "The trend is also very worring": Says who? Boeing720? An anonymus user on wikipedia?

Keep the discussion to those two things from his edit. (And insert the article depth in the article if you want. Adville (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's why I asked for assistance. We are NOW discussing from a new point. So I don't comment on your earlier edits.
As secondary sources for figures and comparing don't exist (apparently), I propose (for the lead):
In line with our other articles on other Wikipedias, will we use WP:PRIMARY (as of Wikimedia meta-data). This include a few concise and "dry" statements. Without the use of any adjectives or adverbs. Boeing720 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We are not discussioning from a new point. Se my original post. Compare with the English Wikipedia article. Adville (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
We came nowhere. You don't decide, neither do I. I have removed all primary sources for now. But if WP:PRIMARY is to be used, must this include a few concise and "dry" statements. Without the use of any adjectives or adverbs. And an NPOV perspective to be used, all the essential facts or none. Advantages as well as disadvantages. Balance. Boeing720 (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't edit disruptive, please. Before you erase that, do it in the article about enwp and see if that is accepted there. Adville (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Stop acting disruptive. This section is for discussing the two things it starts with. Find sources to your personal statement. Do not erase things that have been in the article for ages without concensus (not only your own anger: "he is not doing as I want so I will destroy the article"). Before you destroy this article more, remove the same from sources from the article English Wikipedia and check if that is ok. And remeber: I am not an admin here and we are equal, stop treating me like I'm lower than you, on my talk page. Adville (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
We were asked to present SECONDARY SOURCES! You havn't ! You are dirsruptive by your refusal to use this talk-page. I will return with a full proposal Boeing720 (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Under this headline Only discuss what I Said. Do you not want that start a New headline. You are disruptive and I sånt än admin to look at your pov. Adville (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


  • I've fully protected the article for three days. I trust you will be able to come to a compromise in that time? If not I recommend going through WP:DR, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. In any case it would be most unwise to continue edit-warring next week. --John (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I would like someone else to help out here according to the first issue, the pov-pushing. I have no interest to discuss anything more with Boeing, because he does not seem to understand really what I write and what we are discussing. In my eyes he seems to be angry on all Swedish speaking wikipedians. Then it is better a non-swede looks (like the three that agreed with me above). Best regards, Adville (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
No problem, though it would have been better if it could have been solved without this step. Advice from personal experience; when you have lost the ability to assume good faith in your opponent, when you have started to think of them as an opponent even, it is a good time to walk away. Talking about "POV-pushing" is usually unhelpful; everybody has a point of view and it is only a question of looking at good sources then discussing harmoniously and compromising on how the article reflects them, that is the problem. If editors are honest about their point of view, and can partake in this process in good faith, then a solution can be reached. --John (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I am very used to discuss on wikipedia, and knows how it works. When a person adds own opinion (see above) without sources it should be deleted, which I did. But As you can see he did not want to understand, even if I explained several times. However I will answer him below what I think is not so good. Adville (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you referring to edits before I asked for admin-help ? IF SO, while I actually used sources (unaware of Wikimedia meta-data possibly is primary), but see how much non-sourced and boasting edits you have made yourself. Not to speak of the manner of using a secondary source in SWEDISH, which doesn't cover your statements. Instead you mix it with well selected parts from Wikimedia. Hoping no native in ENGLISH will notice. That's fraud in my book. We could make a full investigation of that... But instead I urge you to be constructive. Finally. Boeing720 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Please do. Adville (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Full proposal for the lead, some comments[edit]

Adville, John, XXN, —DIYeditor, Dan Koehl, SergeWoodzing - all who have made comments under this section.

I have first thought of John's question about secondary sources, but all the so far presented such sources =Aftonbladet gives, is a story about "Swedish Wikipedia is growing" (and explanation, but nothing about any figures). Nothing else in the lead is based on secondary sources, as XXN points out that Wikimedia is a primary source. The same goes for links to Swedish Wikipedia's article "Svensk Wikipedia". There is even a different date stated ("possibly 3.May") there. And that article lacks secondary sources for next to everything. And nothing of what has been presented here. I therefore propose a new lead with two parts. First, what can be stated through secondary sources (or at least stands to reason with little doubt). Followed by a part based on Wikimedia's meta-data. Brief , "dry" and without any colouring of the facts.

The first part is supported by Aftonbladet, a secondary source. No other secondary source has been presented. The second part is taken from Wikimedia's meta-data, which (presumably and according to XXN) is a primary source. Most of our articles on other Wikipedias use Wikimedia meta-data.

The Swedish Wikipedia (Swedish: "Svensk Wikipedia") is the Swedish-language edition of Wikipedia. Since 2012 it has grown considerably due to the introduction of a bot[1]
It is the third largest Wikipedia by article-count with its 3,771,368 articles. Whilst English Wikipedia has 5,719,833 articles. Swedish Wikipedia's Article Depth is 5.56, which can be compared to English Wikipedia's 1001.99. Article Depth is one of several possible rough indicators of the encyclopedia's collaborative quality, showing how frequently its articles are updated. It does not refer to academic quality. [2] The administrators on the Swedish Wikipedia (currently 63) are elected for a fixed-term period of one year and have to be re-elected after that time.[3]

Exact date may be 3.May (as of [[1]]) or 20.May - stated here. Hence, I chose "May 2001". The word "currently" may confuse our readers, "As of when ?". (And in any case "It is currently the third largest Wikipedia by article-count with its 3,788,989 current articles..." isn't optimal. If I knew how to update Article Depth, I would have done so. The comments of Article Depth is not mine, but Wikimedia's. The italic style isn't necessary. Also the number of administrators can well be compared to the number here. Naturally can more be added to the first part, if supported by the Aftonbladet article (like explanation what the bots do etc) or by other secondary sources. Boeing720 (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I object this part "Article Depth is one of several possible rough indicators of the encyclopedia's collaborative quality", and I have explained 10 times above. Here are the reason (copy/past from my original post, with miss-spellings):"the cause of the lowered article depth is not what Boeing is telling in the text (taken from here). However that explanation is incorrect on Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedia because of user:Lsj and his Lsjbot. (How bots are changing the statistics is discussed on the meta page here). It is not a secret that when svwp hit 1 milion articles 454 000 were created by Lsjbot (see its article), alomost half of the articles had only article depth 1!!! That changes the statistics a lot, but the colaboration and discussions before the project is not visible ther." Adville (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I have used an exact quote from Wikimedia. Italic style is, as I wrote, not necessary. Note that Wikimedia states it's not about academic quality. What's the problem with presenting all facts ? If the "bot" creates a large Wiki, but a low Article Depth - so be it. (Off topic, but still, the Article Depth was poor even prior to the bots introduction by 2012; same Wikimedia source)Boeing720 (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
What you think is noted. Can you please let other reas and answer. Adville (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course. But I would like to point out to you, the (for now) short "secondary based part", can very well be expanded by you. The Aftonbladet article ought to be useful to you there. But don't mix secondary sources with primary and make own conclusions based on a such mix. About the "primary part" - If you don't like the explanation made by Wikimedia, we could instead make a link to Wikimedia. For the explanation of what Article Depth really is. Boeing720 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I can agree with your suggestion so far. What about the claims that Swedish Wikipedia has no dispute resolution, no third opinion assistance, no rules against harassment or outing, can this be confirmed with links? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Dan, we were supposed to write that svwp had rules about harassment, you wrote that here under. Outing, isn't it rules to not out others on for example Facebook, then you can be blocked for a year, agree discussion on kaw? Svwp has kaw taking care of those brakning the rules (and, yes, there are diferences compared with enwp.) Adville (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


Disfunctional democrazy[edit]

This is not about improving the article. --John (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While discussing this page, which hopefully is beyond the control of SvWikis inner circle, would you say that it may serve as a neutral documentation regarding issues which may not be transparent and open for discussions on SvWiki?

It has been written that Swedish Wikipedia has no dispute resolution, no third opinion assistance, no rules against harassment or outing, and is lacking equivalent routines to decrease top-down approach, and micromanagement sometimes referred to as APOV (admin point of view). Is this description valid, and can any documention, diffs, links etc be provided to confirm that this criticism is valid?

How could this type of criticism of the last years management be submitted in the article is a sensible way, without exagguration and falling into a POV-trap?

How can we explain about the complexity to describe and argue about admin problems on svWiki, when probably very few on the SvWiki would happily admit that the svWiki is suffering from such problems, since they know from experience that its best for them to remain silent regarding this and similair questons, instead of taking the risk of become victims for the typical "15 people consensus" which are organized on media where not everyone have access?

And how can the lack of transparency within the project and the general use of non-wiki media to take strategical decisions, before presented them on Wikipages be described?

Dan Koehl (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

What Dan koehl is speaking about you can read here. I know I was the one who made the one year block of him on svwp after a long discussion on KAW, comments about the administration of wikipedia, therefor I will not comment this any more. Adville (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear @Adville:, Im consulting my memory, and going through the text on this page, and noowhere I can find that I ever gave you the freedom to tell other people what I mean, what I am speking about, and not. Can you please link to such a discussion? If not, please be so kind, and let me define what I mean, and not, by myself. In this particualir case, you are wrong, but for the future, please limit such explanations for other users on Wikipedia to your own person, not for other users, who have their own freedom of explaining what they mean themself. This is english Wikipedia, where an admin cant go on like on the Swedish, so I kindly ask you to think about your manners and respect other users.
The subject highlighted here are complex, and may sometimes lead to situations where users may experience difficaulties to see goof faith in ther users, be totally honest, be willing to compromize etc. Still, it seems it is needed to try to give the article a brush-up, and lift not only what is positive, but also what is negaitve with svWiki, since an article about another language project should be as NPOV as everything else on enWiki, not a a propaganda article, where critcism get cencored, and negative comments get deleted. It is also a place where you and me, @Adville: meet on equal terms and level, and you cant simply call out a help from other admins on SvWiki and present an artificial consensus, against my point of view. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Adville this is totally off-topic for me regarding the article lead. But why on earth did you block Dan Koehl A WHOLE YEAR, and for what reason ? Was he given a fair chance to explain himself, prior to your blocking ? Were you just tired of him ? Had you blocked ME by now, if this was SW-Wiki ? And isn't that pure and simple lording and abuse of your admin-role there ? Anyways. Dan Koehl has several valid points here. I fully trust him on the lacking guidelines he refers to, as well as the "APOV". It's certainly not about a "single case". Oh no it isn't. Boeing720 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
If you had read you would have understood, Boeing.
Dan, transparancy is good. No hidden agenda from anyone... not even you. I Will not write more about it. Adville (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought this was a discussion about this page and its content? Since its protected I would say we have a job to do, and we can only do it with success, if we manage to see things from others point of view, and try to make changes of the page as neutral as possible. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not see where it is not neutral, but then I have not argued with all on svwp and been banned, so I have only seen how it works when following the rules and act nice on svwp. I know you have another perspective, but if we only writes according to your perspective without sources then it will be POV. Just one question: Why should I have to ask you, or you have to give me "the freedom" to say that you dislike the way Svwp works because your block? Are we not supposed to be honest and open about our connections to the article subjects? That's also why I said I blocked you (but I did not say I was the one who opened up your talk page first so you could say your pov in the matter and tried to help you and therefor felt that in this case it was better to have a neutral admin blocking than one of the old.) Openness is one of the most important things in wikipedia when writing. Best regards, Adville (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I repeat, @Adville:, I thought this was a discussion about this page and its content?
Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks för stating to me that you understand what harassment means and that it not sould be used in Wikipedia (or on Facebook against users) to try to make Other editors stop writing. As you well know we have that rule on svwp too, and it works very Good! There are sources in svwp (you know the links) that shows the rules and that could be used to show how svwp works. Good advice. If you write about it I can help you to correct it. Cooperation in the best way. Best regards Adville (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This discussion, and this page is not about me, @Adville:! I will give you time to reread this entire page, including your comments. It is not upto me to remind you what the focus is on this page, but once again, for the third time, this page is not about me, its focus is NOT on my person. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Of Course not. But you took the example harassment. Great I thought. There svwp works (not dysfunctional), as you know. Then we can cooperate to write about that. Was that wrong to Think like that? Make the article bettet? Adville (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing information[edit]

When I started write at svWiki 29 September 2002, there were some 120 articles, and six users I could identify, but none of them were active any more.

It may belong to the record that after we started to translate the perl script from at 22nd of november, and I mailed the translated php file to Brion 30th of November 2002 (diff), who setup the new site at 1st of december, se diff (I've set up a Swedish test site at . Please check to make sure everything seems in order. --Brion VIBBER 12:01 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)).

Already after two days, 24th of november I founded the Thing, in order to have a tool of democrazy.

Already one week later, at 27th of November, we had created 1116 articles, and became the 7th largest Wikipedia, see diff Loggbok (there was many loggbok, but they seem to have deleted most of them... :( Dan Koehl (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Errors in the article[edit]

The line that says " and the lack of proper tools to fight vandalism" is totally wrong, none of us who went over to Wikipedia from susning, really bothered about vandalism, that issue wasnt even discussed, so someone must have misunderstood that part. What happened was that all of a sudden when I was creating the article "Linköpings blodbad" I saw a fast flash of an advertisment banner on the top of the site, that was all. I went angry, discussed the issue with Lars and others, left susning, and within the next week some 10 guys came along, and we started to copy the articles we had written on susning, to Wikipedia. But vandalism was never a subject or reason for the move. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we use Wikimedia ?[edit]

@XXN:,@Adville:,@Dnm:,@John:,@Dan Koehl:,@DIYeditor:,@SergeWoodzing: All who have contributed lately. I'm trying to be constructive here. Hope for help. Can we or can we not use Wikimedia meta-data ? Please. Boeing720 (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I support you, but which kind of Wikimedia meta-data do you refer to? Dan Koehl (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You have already got an answer several times on that if someone has time to read. Yes data can and will be used. The numbers of articles, article depht etc. It is still ONLY your explanation that is not good. Why do you always focus on everything else. I have several times tried to say that and you proceed to ask about the data when I say you are wrong with your explanation. Stop that if you want to be constructive. You even got warned when Rolling back to your explanation (or erasingen all meta dsta). Adville (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that it was asked for secondary sources. Adville, what explanation do you suggest I have done ? Dan Koehl - any kind. Someone suggested it was primary. Boeing720 (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Ur you do not december your explanation ett the article depth is low I suggest you read my quote in the threads above or look in the edit history. It was your pov and I have several Times explains ett that is not valid here (svwp has so many botcreated articles... you know). Shop trying to missunddrstand what others are writing. Te ment secondary sources on YOUR explanation not the numbers. Adville (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
IMO, what can be seen in Special:Statistics can be used freely without secondary sources. For other derivated measurement data probably some sources are needed. XXN, 08:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Why should that part be of more value than other Wikimedia-data, also statistcs ? Can you find any guideline for that ? Boeing720 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Also, that Special:Statistics tells nothing about specific Wikis, just a total number (for this Wiki or total numbers of Wikis, I'm not sure which) Boeing720 (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Adville, you are assuming I have made any kind of explanation. What exactly do you refer to, please be clear. Boeing720 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
For the x time on this page: Read the first tree lines here. That's what you wrote and were we started to discuss your pov. What I was against was only this: "Article depth is a statistical measure of the collaborative quality of Wikipedias." and not the numbers. My motivation was (once again): "A majority of the articles on svwp are made by bots since 2013 and therefor the articel depth average lowered very much. That does not mean that we do not cooperate on svwp, but that we have had another kind of growth than enwp" (and for the record: The bot articles are not translated from enwp but from external sources because we do not trust wikipedia as a source. The bot translates and it is transperant how it does) So noone is against the statistical numbers but only your explanation. Do not let them discuss something that everyone thinks is clear (but you try to make it look like I am against, or the one wh said something about secondary sources, for your explanation)... marathon discussion because of your pov-edit and you can not understand after so long time why I do not agree whith you? Please can someone else pinged by Boeing try to explain in spimpe english what I mean (maybe I'm writing a little bit strange because english is my second language?) Adville (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It would be helpful to me, if you could copy the exact quote(s), as the link you refer to cover so many statements. If you want to be constructive, please help me understanding all in your opinion, wrongful explanations quote - or quote by quote, if several. Please! Boeing720 (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you are referring to this text

"- and has the lowest article depth of all larger[quantify] Wikipedias (with exception of Cebuano, a language spoken in parts of the Philipphines[1]). Article depth is a statistical measure of the collaborative quality of Wikipedias. The Swedish Wikipedia is in that regard the opposite of English Wikipedia. As of October 2017, the Swedish Wikipedia has a (unitless) value of 5, whilst the English Wikipedia has a value close to 1000.[2] Further, the article depth at the Swedish Wikipedia has fallen every year since 2012.[3]" - but which are wrongful explanations ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We can, in my opinion, use Wikimedia to glean information about Swedish Wikipedia that is utterly uncontroversial. It is not a yes/no type question, but a "sometimes" type question. As far as I can understand, you are arguing about the degree to which the interpretation of article depth can be used as a measure of the collaborative quality in a Wikipedia? Is it original research or synthesis (which aren't allowed?) or is it WP:SELFPUB, something we can sometimes use? As long as you are looking for an either/or answer, you will continue to talk past each other. The answer has to be a nuanced one. It will depend on patience, compromise and good faith. I trust you will continue in this vein. Would an RfC help, do you think? --John (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
That is not a wrongful interpretation. Of the part I presume Adville refers to, I have made several formulation mistakes. Though due to boastful language, poor or no sources etc. Above was "of then". As Swedish Wikipedia is compared to others by "third largest" and article count, I find it proper to also mention its Article Depth and relate that value to for instance the same value of this Wiki. As explained at Wikimedia [[2]] "The depth or editing depth of Wikipedia is one of several possible rough indicators of the encyclopedia's collaborative quality, showing how frequently its articles are updated. It does not refer to academic quality, which cannot be computed, but to Wikipedian quality, i.e. the depth of collaborativeness—a descriptor that is highly relevant for a Wikipedia." This is not my explanation. And I think this explanation or parts of it, could be used. A reason to not just mention the large article number, but also the (low) article depth (including explanation) for this article, is that both values stands out. Others can well use secondary sources for everything else. I have no previous experience of RfC, if any other editor have great difficulties with this, I assume that idea is a good one. Boeing720 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a big problem with this. What you want to do is original research and synthesis, which we must not do! And it is a personal POV that has nothing to do in the article. Therefore, your proposal is not possible and no arguments will change that as long as you do not have reliable and relevant sources arguing the print you want to make. Dnm (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
How can it be OR , synthesis, when it is an exact quote ? (And I have never ever edited any text at Wikimedia). Obviously RfC is needed. Boeing720 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As dem said. He also explains how it is OR. Last time we had rcf they said against you so you proceeded. And also got warned för reverting. So shoot. Rfc. Adville (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I really don't know what RFc is (more than having had a brief look at the link) Could you please give me a link to the RFc you refer to ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Dnm, you may be an admin somewhere else, but not here. I accept your opinion however. Boeing720 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
16 oktober 12.14 John writes "I was asked to comment here and then answers "what does the secondary sources say." Maybe he can say something about the discussion here too that has gone on for an eternity? Just above that comment wrote DIYeditor and XXL just like me about the numbers and do not agree about the "worrying" climate as you say. So you already got an comment after requesting it. Do you remember? And by the way, where is Dnm an admin? Not in svwp... but he knows very well about sources and pov. He is one of svwp experts on that. Adville (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
? Boeing720 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose we could state - Swedish Wiki (etc) .... position (3rd) ... article numbers .... article depth (period !) - followed by "to compare with this Wiki" ... position(1st).... article numbers .... article depth (period !) and (blue link "Full Wikimedia meta-data" - then whatever that's found in secondary sources. That way the Wikimedia explanation is not mentioned. Please be constructive, there is no POV, OR nor SYNTH Boeing720 (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


(edit conflict) None of this has to be difficult. The "Wikipedia article depth" metric as described at meta:Wikipedia article depth was developed to try to show the degree to which a given language Wikipedia has been edited and supported. It is larger where there are more edits per article, and where the non-article pages make up a larger proportion of the total pages on the wiki. The fact that sv-wp has a relatively low article depth (5.6) compared to the median, and particularly when compared to en-wp (1002), is a distinguishing feature of sv-wp and hence relevant to this article. For that reason, it should be mentioned. As far as sources are concerned, the policy you're looking for is Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves:

  • "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ... so long as:" – followed by five caveats.

None of those five caveats are breached by including the information about article depth, although I would suggest that an internal link would be more wiki-like than trying to cite MetaWiki as a traditional reference. I suggest something simple like:

It's not our job to provide detailed analysis on the metric, nor to draw conclusions from it, nor to explain it in depth in this article. Readers who are interested can follow the link and gain a much better understanding of the purpose, value and limitations of the metric than we could hope to impart here. --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for this input. Indeed. It's my hope that we can agree (I do) to follow your suggestions. Boeing720 (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
So from 12 of October until now we have discussed for no reason? Then (see the link) I said the numbers should be there and DYI agreed with me. That writing is ok, it is true for the larger wikis and should also be inserted on the articles about the wikipedia articles on warray-warray and cebuano which also are very low and by coincident happens to have got the majority of their articles by Lsjbot... (I presume Boeing is fast to fix that on those two articles?) Adville (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally, I have serious concerns regarding this "article depth" and I'd say there is strongly needed a wider discussion (on some centralised discussion page, e.g. a Village Pump) regarding it's usage in articles. XXN, 09:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Naturally are you free to bring whatever subject to the Village Pump. But I think RexxS has done an extraordinary well explanation of our guidelines. Adville , I can't comment on an assumption you do + accusations. But if you are prepared to be constructive now, I am. Boeing720 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
You can but should not here where we discuss the article. Good idea XXN. I have been too tired of this discussion to even Think like that, I just want it to be over and neutral. Else I would just be accused even more to be a Swedish admin trying to be a boss on enwp. Adville (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Adville, why don't you have ago at adding the article depth. Just like RexxS explains, but in your formulation. Please see this as an honest attempt of both compromise and constructivity. Boeing720 (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the purpose of specifying an article without explaining the importance and meaning of the concept in the description of SvWP, and explaining that the fact that a BOT has created many of the articles and that is why the depth is not so deep. There is no point in comparing EnWP as the proposal is when comparing two different conditions. Its like comparing apples and oranges if the BOT is left out (and if the BOT-situation are explained, what information does the comparison say the reader? Noting really and at a great risk of misunderstandings). The article depth does not say anything about the quality or degree of cooperation, as far as i understand it. It can very well reflect conflicting relationships and substandard articles, just like a good and forward-thinking collaborative climate. Comparing statistics without neutralizing attributes that distinguish the data from each other will inevitably result in that the reader will get a misinterpreted view of the situation. In my experience, that is how people with agendas often work; making comparisons without acknowledging that there are significant differences behind the statistics that make the comparison of statistics questionable or impossible to do, with the aim of conveying their point of view. Dnm (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dnm: The purpose of mentioning the 'Wikipedia article depth' would be to note an interesting metric that Wikimedians have developed themselves and use to characterise some of the differences between language Wikipedias. Swedish Wikipedia has a lower article depth than most comparable Wikipedias; that fact is clear, documented and noteworthy. Why it should be so different is a matter of speculation, not documentation, as far as I'm aware. If you can find a good independent secondary source that explains the meaning of the concept and its importance to the sv-wp, then please add it to the article. Of course we can comprehend that having a bot create large numbers of articles by making relatively few edits will lower the edits:articles ratio and hence the article depth metric, but you really need an independent source to make that sort of analysis, not us. Do you have a reasoned objection to the form of words that I suggested above, apart from fact-free hand-waving about some sort of agenda (which I don't have)? --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now added a brief statement of its Article Depth, no adjectives, no colouring just the simple facts in a simple sentence. With source. Boeing720 (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Which was deleted by Dnm. "No consensus yet. wait until the discussion is over" - has there ever been a consensus of no mention ? Boeing720 (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Boeing720: It was reverted by Dnm. You made a bold edit; it was reverted; now it's time for the discussion. WP:BRD. For my part, I object to comparing sv-wp to en-wp because en-wp is an outlier, having an unusually high article depth among the larger Wikipedias. That's why I quite deliberately suggested that the sv-wp article depth is low compared to the average of large wikis - and by "average", I was thinking about the median value. That's my contribution to the discussion, Boeing720. I would appreciate it if you would now be patient and allow Dnm to explain his reversion.
@Dnm: There is no requirement on en-wp to establish consensus before making an edit, although I do appreciate that it is always better to allow a talk-page discussion on the issue to reach a conclusion once it has begun. However, reverting with no other reason than lack of consensus is strongly discouraged. if you have more to add to the discussion, please do so. It would sensible to wrap this up soon, as it seems to have been lacking in resolution since February.
Pinging Vanamonde93, who was kind enough to offer an uninvolved opinion at that time, to see whether they have any suggestions on how we might bring this to a conclusion. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
So edit warring are OK on EnWP? I think it is always better to wait for a consensus when the talk page are divided in half, more or less.
About adding stuff to the discussion I have made a big contribution above and now I want to give others the chance to react to them. Not everyone is as eager as Boeing720. About that post I made above, it was not aiming at you, but Boeing720. My sight might be clouded but there is a reason why the user was blocked multiple of times before at SvWP, and i can not see that the user has changed style.
About my revert i will explain more soon. I am in the middle of work so I do not have much spare time at the moment. :) Dnm (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I do not have the time to dig into this at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, RexxS, the issue in February was something else than this, so Vanamonde93 has nothng to do with this... however the kind of problem is the same: Some ex-svwp users think that svwp is very bad and tries to find sources to cherrypick from to make it be (cite from February above) "The problems at Swedish Wikipedia have become common knowledge". By not mentioning that maybe 80% of the articles on svwp, warray-warray and cebuano are made by bots with almost 1-2 in article depth it makes it look very strange in the statistics. Also other aspects influense on the statistics (which makes the statement that article depth is something that shows how "good" cooperation it is on a wiki is not at all as good as you might think): Infected discussions (like this one) gives a high article depth here which in my eyes do not show that we are cooperating good; If you (as some do) writes an almost perfect article off line and then publishes it you do not have to do a lot of corrections and the article depth gets down... This is aspects I have tried to make Boeing understand here during the last 3-4 weeks, in vain. Of course the article depth number might be in the article, but for what reason? How shall the reader understand what the number says? Is it possible to compare with a wiki like enwp or frwp (where bots are not creating articles as much as on svwp)... A lot of questions (and actually the text on the meta about meassurement of how good cooperation climate a wiki has should be changed). I will not write a proposal for how to ad the article depth, because it is such a strange number that I do not really understand what i really tells, more than that it is the average of how many edits each article has. Therefor I think XXN:s proposal to take the discussion about the article depth to the village pump as the best alternative (and link to here to show why the discussion is important). Meanwhile I hope that Boeing will wait to insert something that has no concensus on the discussion page.
There are also another problem shown in this discussion: Are we users from svwp, that have never been blocked there, allowed to edit here on enwp? There are very often written when I edit here or about the Demiz-article (now deleted because of COI) that what I say is not valid because I am an admin on svwp and "everyone knows" that we do not cooperate. Even Dnm, whom have never been an admin, are acused to be too "pro-svwp". Adville (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Adville: Actually you're completely wrong. In February, Averater wrote : "On SvWp there are fewer meta pages compared to the number of articles but that does not make the use of the discussion pages the cause of low article depth." The issue of article depth was clearly under discussion then. Do you not understand that I pinged Vanamonde precisely because he has nothing to do with this? He was kind enough to offer an opinion into the issues as an uninvolved editor, and I recommend that you step back from your feuding and start to concentrate a little more dispassionately on the proposal I made above. You can see as clearly as I can that sv-wp has a significantly lower article depth than most large wikis, and you are as aware as I am that the metric is used on Meta to compare different language Wikipedias. That makes the fact documented and relevant, and I disagree with your suggestion that it would be strange to mention the fact in this article.
I am not a user from sv-wp and I have no dog in this fight, so I object very strongly to your characterisation of my proposal as "infected". Please strike that right now. If you don't understand Wikipedia article depth, then please either learn about it or stop blocking reasonable discussion on an issue you don't understand. I'm content to wait a couple of days for you to come up with serious reasons why my proposal should not be implemented, and then I'll ask for an uninvolved admin to read this discussion and close it. I have no interest in the arguments that you are importing from sv-wp, as they are completely irrelevant to this proposal. I'll formally request you now to drop that stick, and I'll warn all of the editors here who are driving discussions off-topic that I will seek action against disruptive editing. Please take that seriously. --RexxS (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
If you read the discussion here (started some weeks ago) you'll see clearly were I stand. The pov explanation inserted was stoped by me (but not the statistic). The discussion in februari was about another source. (And of course I have not ment you, Rexx when I Said pov. You are neutral, so please stop thinking everything is about you here. Your suggestion is sort of ok, if the numbers need to be inserted... what I ment with infected is the whole discussion between me and Boeing. Not your proposal. Read my post again and try to read it as if I wrote it in Good faith.) What I thought of was that XXN har a Good proposal to take a discussion on the village pump about what the number aktually mean and I gave some Other explanations to show that it is not as easy as it is written ok meta that it indicates Good climate on a wiki if the depth is deep and vice verse if the depth is low (That is a facit that there are many parameters affecting why the depth goes up or down). Am I clear enought not so you understand better? Please also read what DYIeditor wrote in the first thread what was written when I acted to remove pov. Adville (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware of where you stand, and I've read all of the discussions. To be blunt, what is clear is that there are two factions who have arrived from sv-wp. In simplistic terms, one faction is trying to draw attention to their perceived problems with sv-wp, and the other faction is determined to see what they construe as unduly critical of sv-wp removed. I'm not prepared to see en-wp disrupted by edit-warring back and forth over what are trivial issues when viewing the article as a whole; and to that end, I've proposed what I suggest is a compromise that will not represent what either side would ideally want, but which might be something that both sides could live with. That's the essence of "seeking consensus" and I sincerely hope that you could subscribe to it as a solution that could bring the arguments here to an end. At least on that particular point. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

When infected debate it is best to be as short as posible to avoid the hard parta. I suggest this: "... and has a Wikipedia article depth of 5.6." And link to the meta page. Interested readers can read there about what that means. I would like the text on meta to have a discussipn like I had here above about what interfear with the numbers. That is possible there. Not here. Also a discussion on the village pump would be good about what use this number as in all the articles. Adville (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: Your suggestion sounds sensible. Thank you. I've cleaned up the references and formatting in the lead, and then made a trial edit to test consensus by adding " and has a Wikipedia article depth of 5.6". If it sticks, then we will have a rough consensus, and perhaps can close this protracted argument. Here's hoping. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The text is Ok, but I think the link should be a real source (a number source) to the ref list. It looked better. Adville (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
...because I do not like externa links in the articles. Looks more beautiful with real refs. Adville (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me explain: on English Wikipedia, links to sister projects are considered internal links, not external links (as you know, they are formed from [[Page name]], not [url]), but are generally avoided where they could cause confusion about the target. On the other hand, there is a very strong dislike here for using any Wikipedia project as a normal reference, principally because it is user-generated content, and often considered an unreliable source. I'm not wedded to either form of linking in this particular case, but I have a slight preference for the direct link as I believe it's far less likely to be refactored later by well-meaning editors who think it's forbidden to use Wikipedia as a reference. I shan't worry if you choose to re-write the link to your preference, of course. I suggest you leave it a few days anyway, just to see if the current wording sticks – we ought to see how Boeing720 and Dnm find the wording – rather than muddying the waters over a trivial issue. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It works for me. Though, I would like to have the numbers with and without the bot. But dö not know if that is possible. Dnm (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually I can agree with Dnm here, if that's possible. Perhaps suitable other Wikipedias (of +1.000.000 articles, and European) to compare with is French with approx. 219 or/and Spanish 201 ? And if it's possible to disregard from BOTs , as I personally see it, could well both the suggested values for SW.Wiki be used, including some explanation. But disregard from BOT's isn't the same as using another math formula. Looking at the "trend statistics", the AD value as of 1.January.2012, that value was 50. (And the highest at SW.WIKI ever, according to that table) - if no "disregard from BOTs" is possible. I also must thank Dnm for being constructive. Thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
My final advice to everyone in the discussion is two-fold: (i) "comparisons are odious" (according to Cervantes, Christopher Marlowe and John Donne!); and (ii) it's fine to source figures from a self-published source, but any analysis requires independent sourcing. If we can find a reliable third-party source that discusses the value and implications of "Wikipedia article depth", then it would be possible to make use of it (but not compulsory). Otherwise I'd recommend we all forget about this and spend more of our time on improving less controversial topics. There are millions of them. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
OK for me, there are better things to do. Those who want to compare, can just press the link. I agree. Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)