User talk:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge

This page contains info about how many articles are needed to cover all human knowledge. Do you want to discuss about this? Please, leave a message.

Counting literature

Both total and literature estimated number of articles as: +100,000,000. From counting I see +121,000,000 Bulwersator (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. 121,000,000 counting all editions (all editions by a single book title may be included in a single article, I guess). But, yeah, I think total knowledge is over 100,000,000. emijrp (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy and notability

• Lists of stars and Category:Lists of stars by constellation. Guide Star Catalog II contains ~ 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) objects. Not all stars are notable, but, we can create lists like the asteroids ones (10,000 stars per list are "only" 100,000 pages).

from star:

"A 2010 star count estimate was 300 sextillion (3 × 10²³) in the observable universe."

-> around 300000000000000000000 pages? Rather unlikely. Galaxies?

"There are probably more than 170 billion (1.7 × 10¹¹) galaxies in the observable universe."

Also unlikely. Bulwersator (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, universe is huge. Perhaps we will need a new sister project for universe objects. By the way, a few thousands lists about galaxies may contain enough for the next years, 1000 galaxies/list * 1000 lists = 1,000,000 nearest/most important ones. --emijrp (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Literature and notability

+100,000,000 - I think that not everything is notable and it may be reduced to +10,000,000 Bulwersator (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, go ahead : ). Although not all books deserves and article, they may be compiled in lists (by country, by genre, etc), with a little summary. emijrp (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I reduced to 50M, to keep total at 130M. Bulwersator (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have added to Literature stuff like magazines and newspapers. Also, main characters in famous books deserve articles. emijrp (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Counting

• more than 250,000 in USA alone [1]
• "Approximately 505,000 cubic kilometres (121,000 cu mi) of water falls as precipitation each year; 398,000 cubic kilometres (95,000 cu mi) of it over the oceans." (Earth rainfall climatology)
• "average rainfall (in USA) exceeding 30 inches (760 mm) per year" = 76 cm -> 0,8 m = 0,0008 km. Area: 9,826,675 km², so USA rainfall volume is 80,000km³
• I wanted to make random guestimate: 80,000km³ -> +250,000 rivers, world total -> +n rivers

But rainfall in entire world is 500,000km³, over land 100,000, with 80,000 in USA. And I am unable to find my mistake. Bulwersator (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

9826675*0.0008 = 7861 km3 emijrp (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, copy-paste with punctuation fail Bulwersator (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

; ) emijrp (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

More info about how many rivers are there in the United States. emijrp (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Estimate of total estimate

My guess: 500,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 Bulwersator (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably. But first, we need to compile knowledge branches that can increase our current estimate up to 1,000,000,000. Meanwhile, we can open a pool where people write their rough estimates. emijrp (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah its far more than 110 million. You're forgetting all of those "hidden" articles like case study subjects too, e.g Cotton production in Samarkand Province, Rice production in Mandalay District, Economic development in Caracas, Scientific properties of Andromeda etc. individual exhibits in many museums etc which potentially could go into extreme detail. There is undoubtedly at least 1 billion potential articles for sure. But the boundaries are hazy given than many millions of subjects could have articles but might be borderline notable. Also, what about all those many subjects which are notable but are yet to be written about? What about legends and knowledge known only to tribes within Sumatra and New Guinea and the Amazon, some of the tribes which are not even documented themselves? Think of the vast number of articles we could have about subjects in the whole universe but man knows scarily little about.. I'd say there is an infinite amount of potential knowledge as the universe is constantly expanding and the world is constantly evolving and new material becoming available!! But even if we are talking about the sum of what man knows currently, still well over 1 billion articles, I'm certain of that. But remember we are supposed to be an encyclopedia which only highlights human knowledge, not a website for literally mentioning everything that exists..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We can create a section in the page with the red links you mentioned and other examples of local topics but notable ones. It may be fun to read all that remote article titles. emijrp (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Gahhhh, the possibilities... Best to start with notable agricultural crops by country I guess.. Like Pomegranate production in Afghanistan, Coffee production in Costa Rica, Banana production in Honduras, Rice production in Vietnam etc♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If this project was taken literally we would need to document all the facts and thoughts upon those facts for each person in the world. There is so much that would not make it on to Wikipedia but still is human knowledge. This task is impossible. But i commend you on your efforts to add most human knowledge. Retartist (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Pool

We open this section for a pool about the number of articles required to compile all human knowledge.

• Your estimate and a explanation. If desired, estimate when Wikipedia will be complete --~~~~

• 500,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 - never, new notable topics will appear faster than articles (except Strong AI scenario) Bulwersator (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking only about stuff on Earth, it is possible to create (with current technology) 1 or 2 billion articles. Adding extensions to MediaWiki for known stars/galaxies/exoplanets catalogues may rise the number of (virtual-generated on demand) available articles to trillions and more. emijrp (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I ignored single sentence articles about stars etc ("3 × 10²³ stars in the observable universe." + exoplanets + rogue planets + asteroids + Oort cloud objects + galaxies + exoasteroids) Bulwersator (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of species revised

There is a new estimate about number of species, about 8,7 million[2] with an error of 1,3 million. emijrp (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean an error of 1,3 million? I don't quite get it.Trongphu (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

See Decimal mark and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DecimalSeparator.svg.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about decimal mark. I know 1,3 million is 1,300,000 but what i'm talking about is what error is he talking about?Trongphu (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

an error of ± 1,300,000 [3]. emijrp (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If only 1,233,500 have been described, the rest is unknown to science, and thus is not human knowledge. We cannot write an article about an unknown species. So at this point in time, 1,233,500 is 100% of human knowledge. Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, sites like Global Names Index are crap and you should not trust them at all. For accurate listings of the numbers of species, you might be interested in [4] Ruigeroeland (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That one's just for animals. You're still missing most part of the pie. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Piling on the bandwagon here. This page is getting linked from media sources covering our 5 millionth article milestone (which happened to be an article on a plant species). 8.7 million is not the appropriate figure to use here. Estimates of known species vary, but are far short of 8.7 million. Catalogue of Life has 1.6 million species and estimates itself as being 84% complete (implying 1.9 million described species). There are some issues with Catalogue of Life's data and I wouldn't recommend it be used as a source for English Wikipedia (but it has been used as a source for the Swedish, Winaray and Cebuano Wikipedias where species account for the majority of the articles). Our global biodiversity article also goes with an estimate of 1.9 million described species. Plantdrew (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Red links over time

Hi. An interesting study about red links shows 4.8M unique red links in 2009, and 5.6M unique red links in 2011. The more articles are created, the more articles are missing. emijrp (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant effort

You might add a parallel page identifying knowledge suitable in form/type for Wikipedia, which is about things that are locally notable, in time and place (significant local attention, at least briefly, from everyone living nearby) but not currently 'globally notable'.

Since standards for global notability change over time, this can estimate an upper bound on the # of articles entailed in capturing all human knowledge. This larger group would include things like: buildings/structures of local note (including all those costing more than a nominal sum, requiring municipal funds, &c), people of local note, organizations with non-trivial staff and longevity, events of note, &c. 1-2 magnitudes larger than what this page covers, I reckon. – SJ + 12:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi SJ, thanks for your words. I'm trying to compile all that you said, in this page. I'm aware of the local/global notability issue, but, I think that local USA topics are better covered and more allowed that foreign countries local topics, sadly. That is more a bias/chauvinism problem that a notability one. We definitely need more wikipedians from other countries to attempt to balance this. Regards! emijrp (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of mountains

Hi -- Nice collection of items. However, I found in the section on Mountains an external link which actually led to a database of caves; did someone swap this with the right one? If not, you may want to replace it with this one, which appears to link to over 100,000 mountains, arranged by country. -- llywrch (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your kind words. Yes, looks like an error, please fix whatever you found and add more info if you have. This is a community effort. Regards. emijrp (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Digitizing a gazillion documents project

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/23/1725231/carl-malamud-answers-goading-the-government-to-make-public-data-public emijrp (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Software

I think that 100,000+ is a better estimation for the software count.

• at least 1000 notables computer languages;
• at least 2000 notables malwares (1 on 500);
• at least 40000 notables video games (MobyGames is far from being complete, and source material exists for almost every published games);
• at least 2000 notables applications for iOS an Android (1 on 500);
• at least 50000 other softwares (there is more that a million of applications on Windows, but i am looking for a source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koko90 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks OK. Update the software estimate. emijrp (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

IRC channel on Freenode

I have registered a channel in Freenode: #allhumanknowledge. I hope we talk from time to time there. emijrp (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

number of websites

Since you just had a ? there so far, here's one source for it -> [5] which says "According to the recent survey, till December 2011 around 366,848,493 websites are available on world wide web." Mutante23 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, add it to websites section. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

arts - more arts should be listed!

I noted that some important, but less well-known arts for the non-artist are completely missing in the article! some examples:

• textile arts (tapestry, textile print art, etc.)
• ceramics
• graphics (drawings, engravings, etchings, etc.)
• other arts, that are connected to the crafts, like: metal arts, juwels, etc.
• visual arts (contemporary arts that tend to replace the arts of painting, graphics, etc.)

One could simply visit a famous museum of art history, like the Louvre in Paris, and note how many different art categories are available there. As this page is trying to list missing elements of a universal knowledge, it is important to list these kinds of details, perhaps. --Horia mar (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, add that subcategories inside the Arts section. emijrp (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

National Recording Preservation Plan

The United States Library of Congress has a National Recording Preservation Plan.

• Now Hear This: Library of Congress Issues Plan to Preserve Recordings - NYTimes.com (February 14, 2013)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reddit

Someone sent it to Reddit. emijrp (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Chemistry and biochemistry

I am not an expert, but the estimate of 5000 notable compounds is way off. There is probably already more articles than that (we have lists of minerals, alloys, inorganic compounds, organic compounds, biomolecules..). And considering there is also biochemistry, with all the genes, proteins, enzymes and pathways... I would daresay that there is at least 20 000 000 potential articles there. 78.45.93.96 (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The Naturwissenschaften are still grossly underestimated. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and update :-) emijrp (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Government departments

Probably a lot of notable government departments (past and present) at various levels of government (federal, state, etc) for each country, might be worth trying to add to the count. —Pengo 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an estimate for your country? emijrp (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Information theoretic arguments

Hello! Estimating the number of articles required to span all human knowledge strikes me as a very worthy goal, and I see you have made much progress in this effort by trying to carefully list domains of knowledge and the number of articles that might be needed to cover them. I can see, however, two problems that might arise:

• The needed article count is not very well-defined because it depends on sociological factors like the m:mergism/m:separatism, and inclusionism/deletism debates.
• The article is probably not a natural way to divide up knowledge, and may be supplanted by something else. For example, I'm hoping that Wikipedia will start turning into an expert system. I think this might be one of the ideas behind Wikidata but I don't know much about this project.

Perhaps these issues have been raised--I admit I haven't carefully read everything that's been written about this project.

One way to address these issues might be to try to simultaneously approach the estimation problem "from the other end" using information theoretic arguments. The idea would be first to estimate the amount of "information" in Wikipedia (for a suitable definition of information, maybe something like Shannon entropy), and then to devise an argument to approximate (or set a reasonable upper bound) on the amount of (notable?) human knowledge in existence. I think there are precedents for this kind of analysis--for example, I know there have been attempts to produce bounds on the amount of information natural selection can extract from the environment at every generation (of course, I'm not claiming this has any bearing on our problem, but it is similar in spirit). I've also seen some information theoretic analyses of Wikipedia.

Do you know of any research along these lines? I think this kind of analysis might be rewarding. It might even stimulate the development of more rigorous definitions of notability that might someday be of practical use. I'm probably not skilled enough/have time to pursue this myself, but if anyone is interested in collaborating, I'd been keen to discuss these kinds of ideas further. And of course, if there are deep reservations to the idea, I'd be interested to hear those too! 4dhayman (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I know that there are many barriers to establish a good estimation, but this is fun :-). About the mergism/separatism, an example is the lists of asteroids, all the rocks can fit in only a list or few lists, or they can be hundreds of thousands of separate articles. For these cases we can provide an estimation based on number of lists and another in the number of separate articles (low and upper bounds). About the inclusionism/deletionism, I have tried to add to this page only stuff that is clearly notable (well, may exist hard deletionists, but meh...), and we mantain the estimations of (for example the Literature section) in low numbers. According to Google exist 120 million books, other authors say that there are 50 million academic papers, and there are more written stuff; we considerate that only a X% is notable, so we have put an estimation of 20 million articles for Literature. Studies about this... very few, I only know this one about red links and it is unfinished. I continue working on this page after 3 years and it will never finished. I encourage you to elaborate your thoughts on this in this talk page, make your own estimations, or add a section inside the User:Emijrp/All human knowledge about the difficulty to do good estimations. Regards! emijrp (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I shall think further about these issues and write again if I have anything concrete. 4dhayman (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

I think we can soon add one column to each table with a query to the current number on Wikidata. For example:

• http://208.80.153.172/wdq/?q=claim[225]

after loading for about 1 minute, currently gives about 1.2 million results. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata is in an advanced stage and contains useful data for this project. Using the Autolist2 tool we can retrieve the number of articles by entity. For example, searching for the "instance of" "Castle", it shows that there are 11,000+ castles in Wikidata. I'm not sure if add this info to a new column "Wikidata", next to the "Progress" columns. I still have to figure out how to get only English Wikipedia results. Thoughts? emijrp (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a conversion table between our topics and the Wikidata "instance of" property. Sometimes it matches, other don't. For example there is no "aquarium" instance of, they are in "zoo".

Topic	List	Example article	Instance of	Query	Items	Comments
Aquaria	List of aquaria	Georgia Aquarium Georgia Aquarium (Q1155919)	zoo	[6]	891	Need a instance "aquarium"?
Bridge	List of bridges	Bosphorus Bridge 15 July Martyrs Bridge (Q4484)	bridge	[7]	8,176	There are instances for suspension bridges, steel, road, etc.
Bullring	List of bullrings	Plaza de Toros de Ronda Plaza de Toros de Ronda (Q1546709)	bullring	[8]	17

Finally I am adding the Wikidata info, using AutoList links. See User:Emijrp/All_human_knowledge#Architecture. emijrp (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Two years later... I am using Wikidata seriously and methodically (https://query.wikidata.org) and I am coding a bot to update the figures. emijrp (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

All sections are using Wikidata now and the page is updated daily by a bot. Yeah! emijrp (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Closure of Canadian science libraries

The discussion at User talk:Skookum1#Closure of Canadian science libraries (version of 04:57, 27 February 2014) might be relevant to User:Emijrp/All human knowledge#Destroyed knowledge.
It has been reported that some materials from closed Canadian science libraries would be digitized upon request.

• The Tyee – What's Driving Chaotic Dismantling of Canada's Science Libraries?—The Tyee (December 23, 2013)
• Fisheries and Oceans library closings called loss to science - Politics - CBC News—CBC.ca (January 6, 2014)
• “Libricide”: Harper government closing and junking environmental libraries | Climate Science Watch—Climate Science Watch (December 27, 2013)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That would fit better in Wikipedia:There is a deadline. AHK section on destroyed knowledge doesn't need to be exhaustive. emijrp (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I prefer to leave it to other(s) to add an entry with appropriate references.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/News and notes

US National Archives enshrines Wikipedia in Open Government Plan, plans to upload all holdings to Commons. emijrp (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Numismatics and the Coin Compendium as a model for progress

Where does numismatics fit into all of this? History? Warren Esty says there is something like 100'000 common ancient coin types. Obviously, no book has been written that contains them all, and that's just the ancient ones. I'm the founder of the Coin Compendium (CC), which has the objective of cataloging all known types of coins, all known individual coin specimens, and all known marketplace sightings of each of those individual specimens too.

When I compare the quantification proposed here (individual articles) with the much more fine-grained way the CC handles it, I'm reminded of the trend for the goal estimates to continue increasing as progress is made on the old goal estimates. In other words, instead of producing an article for every notable person in a field, what if you end up collecting information about every scrap of data that survives both directly from those people, and derivative works too? In other words again, I think the scope of goals for collecting all human knowledge will inexorably continue to widen as progress is made toward previously more narrow goals.

As applied in my Coin Compendium example, we may have 3 types of data we want to collect which is arguably finite (Types, Specimens, Sightings), but what is NOT finite are things like photographs and other supplementary info that we need to collect to populate those 3 types of data. In the context of Wikipedia articles, at what point is enough information collected to consider the article complete? I don't think there is such a thing, because the supplementary data required for each article is open-ended. How many photos, quotes, citations, etc are enough? I propose that only possessing ALL of it is enough. Every scrap, every digital bit, recorded and cataloged. An eternal, never-ending endeavor...

Badon (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Message to Village pumps in other Wikipedias

As some of the sections are divided into country rows to make easier the sum up, I'm going to compose a message to ask for these numbers to the Village pumps of language-related Wikipedias.

---

Hello there! I'm an English Wikipedia user trying to explore the idea of compiling "all human knowledge". I have used an approach by topic and some of them are divided into country subsections. I have searched for references for some countries but they are not always available in English, so many statistics are still missing.

I request your help to fill the gaps in the table, adding the approximate number for every entity, using references in your local language. For example, in the aquaria cell: [[Local list of aquaria in France|<number of aquaria>]]<ref group="ahk">Reference to external site</ref>

All human knowledge... in France
Architecture
Aquaria	?	Aqueducts	?	Bridges	?	Bullrings	?	Castles	?
Cinemas	?	Horse racing venues	?	Hospitals	?	Hotels	?	Lighthouses	?
Meteorological stations	?	Military installations	?	Monuments	?	Observatories	?	Palaces	?
Places of worship	?	Power stations	?	Prisons	?	Research stations	?	Reservoirs and dams	?
Schools	?	Shopping malls	?	Skyscrapers	?	Stadiums	?	Streets, squares, parks	?
Theatres	?	Tunnels	?	Universities	?	Watermills	?	Windmills	?
Zoos	?
Media
Albums	?	Books	?	Dictionaries	?	Encyclopedias	?	Films	?
Magazines	?	Newspapers	?	TV channel	?	Television programs	?	Television stations	?
Radio programs	?	Radio stations	?
Geography
Administrative divisions	?	Canals	?	Cave	?	Deserts	?	Forests	?
Glaciers	?	Islands	?	Lakes	?	Mountains	?
Rivers	?
GLAM
Archives	?	Libraries	?	Museums	?
Society
Demonstrations	?	Languages	?	NGOs	?	Political parties	?	Sport leagues	?
Patents	?	Transport	?
Databases
Please, add here any additional databases related to your country/language for the topics above or any that could be covered in Wikipedia. For example, in English language, for films is well known Internet Movie Database, and in Spanish it exists a similar site called FilmAffinity. Database 1 Database 2 Database 3
Comments
Further information you want to add.

Notes

If you think that any relevant topic for your country is missing in this table, please add it to the comments section. If any topic doesn't apply to your country, write "no". Thank you. emijrp (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) In the other hand, there is a related essay Wikipedia:There is a deadline and a userbox {{User All human knowledge}}. It would be great to have a French version. Can you translate, please?

---

Counting rationale

What is your counting method? How did you count, say, 2M articles for the geography of Asia? 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: When exact numbers are unknown, I use extrapolation from similar topics. I think the Asia figure was estimated using China country, which has about 1M entities. emijrp (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Number of books vs. Number of articles

According to Google there are 129,864,880 books.

The total notable articles figure is over 104,000,000.

Well looking at the numbers alone, the sum of all human knowledge should be books, not Wikipedia. There are clearly more of them. --Pagen HD (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pagen HD: I think your question may have been answered above already. effeietsanders 08:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pagen HD: There are an infinite amount of numbers as well--not sure why we wouldn't count that... Books are not knowledge and Wikipedia doesn't attempt to be an exhaustive repository of every single fact. Imagine all of the yearbooks or personal genealogies that have been published. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL That was actually an observation. Not a question or suggestion or anything. I've come to Wikipedia too many times, only to find the subject I'm looking for is apparently considered "not notable". In some cases the article even existed at one point, but was later deleted. So the "notability" requirement will certainly be a big factor in this kind of discussion. --Pagen HD (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pagen HD: For what it's worth, you can always check http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Speedy_deletion_Wiki:Main_Page for deleted content from here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The path there will not be linear, and the destination is moving

I noticed your draft page User:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge, in which you stated "At current creation rate, 8,000 new items per day, Wikidata singularity will occur in 2040s, in the same date range of technological singularity."

Due to accelerating change, it won't remain at the current rate. The genome project is a case in point, as explained by Ray Kurzweil.

But the target is moving too. Knowledge is doubling every 12 months, soon to be every 12 hours.

I couldn't find an estimate that synchronized these two factors (the acceleration of technology and the accelerating growth of knowledge). But I'll keep looking, as I find the time.

Cheers, The Transhumanist 00:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: In these cases where two factors grow parallely, I use to assume both balance and cancel each other out. It isn't scientific, but until we find something better... emijrp (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... the criteria are clearly not met, especially "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace" --99of9 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Request

Could someone add {{copy to Wikiversity}} to the page (above the MFD template)? KMF (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done @KATMAKROFAN: this is a personal user subpage. Please ask the page owner on their talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Request that "Siku Quanshu (1773–1782)" be added to the list of prior attempts to compile all human knowledge. Snuge purveyor (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done @Snuge purveyor: this is a personal user subpage. Please ask the page owner on their talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Upgrade to essay at Wikipedia:Sum of all knowledge

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The proposal is unsuccessful. Consensus is clearly against this proposal. Mz7 (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Should this page be upgraded to essay status at Wikipedia:Sum of all knowledge, since the intention of this page is to quantify an element of Wikipedia's WP:PURPOSE? A number of editors made a similar suggestion at the recent AFD. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely not. There is no stated intention that "this page is to quantify an element of Wikipedia's WP:PURPOSE". It is full of uncited and often fanciful claims, such as "Wikidata singularity will occur in 2040s, in the same date range of technological singularity." Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose--What the heck is this?The concept and working of Wikidata has eluded me for long and the comparisons and future-dreams I see here, does nothing to mend it.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support - If doing this, it would need to be edited by the community by consensus to reflect Wikipedia better. —PaleoNeonate – 05:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• oppose This is someone’s personal research/hobby. Certainly not a useful part of WP space; just a random collection of information, badly formatted and far too long for easy navigation. Putting it somewhere that editors could come across it unintentionally, causing many browsers to grind to a halt loading it, would be disruptive. The recent AfD outcome was to keep it as a user essay, by e.g. stopping it being indexed. Maybe if a large number of editors were working on it, and had beaten it into some sort of shape. But it has remained largely untouched by anyone but the creator.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that it appears to be personal/research/hobby and see that he's garnered publicy for it, and as an apparently intended example of Wikipedia's purpose some of it is just embarrassing. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose It's simply too big of a page to be useful. What this is trying to do, I think, is create an index for the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, that simply isn't feasible, as the page would have to be constantly updated. If anything like this were to actually be implemented, it would have to be in the Special namespace, and I don't think we currently have the ability to index this encyclopedia by anything other than categories, anyway. Also, I agree with Softlavender. I haven't read the whole thing (Who can?), but it's as if the author looked into a crystal ball while they were writing that sentence. — Gestrid (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There isn't anything remotely useful to incorporate into an essay about the purpose of Wikipedia. Alex Shih^Talk 05:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this should be kept as a personal project. Lepricavark (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability rate of 1000:1

A main assumption of the article is: "We could assume that in an average city with a population of 100,000 inhabitants there are 100 notable people: artists, scientists, writers, politicians, sportspeople and many more". I think there is a good way to show this now with the COVID-19.

The current COVID-19 pandamic is causing many deaths worldwide. The number of these people per country are published. Also, we have at the English Wikipedia categories Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic by country. It would be great to see if the assumption of 1:1000 is correct. And probably the ratio is in some countries higher.

For instance, there are as of today 6,016 deaths in the Netherlands, with 13 pages (notability rate of 1:463 (!!)). Other example, the United Kingdom has 40,542 deaths, with 39 pages (notability rate of 1:1040). SportsOlympic (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)