[09:53:46] [[*Wikifunctions:Status updates/2026-05-02]]* [09:59:45] Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #246 [09:59:45] * Request for input: what should we count for Abstract Wikipedia - help us define good metrics [09:59:47] * Recent Changes in the software [09:59:48] * Updates about V2 [09:59:50] * Volunteers’ Corner on May 11 [09:59:51] * Fresh Functions weekly: 81 new Functions [09:59:53] Link by Toby above [10:04:05] Is it already circulated or can I put in a link to the talk I gave? I guess the newsletter audience is a good audience. [10:08:53] I thought I did last week? [10:09:28] I did not! [10:10:33] Oh no, sorry! I already sent it out — we can add it to the Website, but next week then for circulation. [10:10:37] I don't think I had it up by then. (re @vrandecic: I thought I did last week?) [10:11:00] It was a long week [10:11:12] Next week is fine. No worries. (re @vrandecic: Oh no, sorry! I already sent it out — we can add it to the Website, but next week then for circulation.) [10:46:20] Thanks! [14:46:58] 7172 [14:50:36] Re: metrics, I don't think anything quantitative is particularly useful here. I'm not sure, though. I think, in this early stage, the quality of the best bilingual or better article is a good metric, and they we can move on to number of good articles according to a consistent content assessment system. (re @vrandecic: Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #246 [14:50:36] * Request for input: what should we count for Abstract Wikipedia - help us define good metri...) [14:51:19] I don't think a bunch of stubs are really growth, necessarily, and I argue they might actually be a bit harmful in the long term