Hi, I’m wondering what the total number of registered users and active users on LingQ is?
I’m doing some research on language learning platforms and would be interested to know at least ballpark figures for this.
Totally understand if this is private information, but still curious to know, even if it’s information from a year or so ago.
Thanks!
On another note, it seems that LingQ doesn’t even have a wikipedia page yet?! 
We have 1,43 milion registered users at LingQ. That’s all I can tell for now. 
1.43 mil?!
That’s a lot! I’d like to see more topics in different languages on the forums.
Yes, this is exactly what I don’t understand. It would be great to practice writing skills here in other languages, but only the English forum is alive.
You need to take into consideration that not all of them are active. In fact lots of the users left the web site for good.
@ilearnlang It’s very very easy to practice writing, especially in your three languages, on youtube or facebook.
Choose something you’re interested in and go to the comments section.
Remember that participating with natives will always beat ‘language learning’ - don’t learn eg English, become English.
Here’s a French video on a spicy topic. C. Villani répond à Ferry sur les maths qui ne servent à rien - YouTube - over 800 comments. If i want to discuss it i just find a comment i want to reply to and go at it.
Also Ditz is right in what she says - most of the members won’t be active on the site, let alone the forum.
Yup!
Wow! Thanks for that - exactly what I needed!
Sorry, this page was recently deleted (within the last 24 hours). The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
03:11, 11 April 2018 Bilby (talk | contribs) deleted page LingQ (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject (TW))
Wikipedia is political and rather “anal.” You will not get a page to stick unless you do it their way and figure out who it is that hates Lingq and work around them. Wikipedia is not itself a credible source anyway (at least when my children write papers for college they won’t let them cite Wiki in general, it just isn’t any good for facts but rather publicity/curiosity).
It’s a bit sad to hear that wikipedia can be biased… hopefully they just deleted it because it read more like an advertisement for lingq instead of an interest article. Similar platforms (memrise, duolingo, etc.) have wikipedia pages. It’s a shame they don’t just improve the page so it can stay. It looks like it has been deleted at other times in the past too. :\
Wikipedia is brilliant for facts actually, you just have to be aware that it’s a wiki and that anyone could have edited it recently and added incorrect information. Also, good quality pages will always have references and links to reliable sources which is invaluable for research. Certainly good advice not citing wikipedia, but it’s a great starting point for research.
I don’t get why uni’s won’t allow it. At the end of the day it is a heavily moderated website which converges several sources into one page. No different from most ‘history’ books. You try adding something with no source on there - it is pretty much instantly changed no matter how small or obscure the topic.
That said i don’t see why LingQ’s page would be any different to Memrise’s or Yabla’s and so don’t see why it isn’t allowed. FWIW Steve Kauffman is also seemingly barred from being on there.
Maybe he pissed someone off ?
Look, just take the listing of polyglots on wiki as an example. If you tried to use that as a source you have a very poor listing which is arbitrary and with no particular sense of significance. Steve IS on the page (barely) but so many others are not, while many who are not especially noted or influential polyglots are listed. It is the lack of any coherence of rhyme or reason and the obvious “agenda” of so many wiki’s that are just two reasons it is such a poor source for citation. As one said, it is good sometimes (if the link isn’t too old) to use wiki’s reference section as a jumping point to find the true sources and see if there is something good you can get.
The deletion request was by user “Fiftytwo thirty”. A polite query to his Wikipedia talk page by the article creator might be beneficial; he admits on his user page that he is human and can makes mistakes. User “Billby” who serviced the deletion request might also be queried. There is I think an formal arbitration process, but I’m not familiar with it.
However, it might be best just to try again with a page more likely to be accepted. I am an administrator on Wikipedia, and though I have not exercised that in a long time, I was able to view the deleted article. It was pretty thin, honestly.
If someone were to try again, here are some suggestions to make it more likely to “stick”. These generally are good advice for any new article:
Build it up to at least a couple of paragraphs rather than a just a sentence or two.
Work in a way to mention similar, competing, or complementary services with wikilinks to those pages. This helps establish the fact that this is part of a larger topic, other components of which are already represented on Wikipedia.
Include a few sentences or short paragraph of how the system relates to Stephen Krashen’s theory of language acquisition, naturally wikilinking to his page on Wikipedia. This also contributes to the notability requirement by showing its relation to larger topics.
Be sure to include all relevant Categories at the bottom, including “Language education” and “Online education”. This establishes it’s relevance to a recognized part of the WIkipedia ecosystem.
Find some external articles that reference, praise, or criticize Lingq by notable people or organizations and include them as references. So much the better if they also have a page on Wikipedia, further establishing their bona fides. Everything on Wikipedia is /supposed/ to be verifiable, and I’d never create a page without references.
Do NOT make it sound like an advertisement. That’s the kiss of death. A little honest criticism helps in this regard.
Before creating the page, review other pages related to the field to see if there’s a natural, unforced way to add a reference to Lingq with a wikilink (which will initially be red). “Orphan” pages are more likely to be deleted as non-notable than those with a number of wikilinks to them. This should only be done in a way that advances and improves those articles, of course.
Create the draft page in your own sandbox and invite others to review and collaborate prior to pasting a ready-for-prime-time page into the regular article space.
Make sure you’re not Steve Kaufman or someone else from Lingq itself. Creating or editing pages about one’s self or organization is taboo.
As for the erstwhile page about Steve Kaufman, I’m not familiar with the history, but there is no “blacklist”. There are notability requirements, and there are also quite strict requirements on biographies of living people in terms of reliable references and neutrality. Personally, I think he’s an interesting enough person with an interesting personal history. But interesting does not necessarily equate to notability.
Disagreement does not equate to hate. Failure to understand this is a large and growing problem.
Just because a source doesn’t take in to account every single example of something doesn’t make it a poor source.
Steve Kaufmann does not have a wiki despite people trying to create one.
Plenty of academic, scientific, journalistic and historical texts have political, social and personal agendas. They are still cited. Some wiki pages contain insane amounts of propaganda and agenda and link to ‘reliable’ sources to back up their lies.
The point is, if i go to Wiki and it says ‘Alex Ferguson got pizza thrown at him.’ and i scroll to the footnote, i can click it to verify the source.
Many students use wikipedia and simply find the original source from the bottom of the page.
There is nothing at all wrong with this. Like in all things, we have to make personal decisions as to which sources to include and which sources to disclude. Academic opinion is not the holy grail of what we are to consider or not consider relevant or credible as a source.
So basically you are saying what I said in my last sentence. Even then, you have to be very careful, some stats off wiki links are SOOOOO old.
No, not really. You were saying it’s a poor source because of XYZ. I was saying that ‘recognised’ ‘good’ sources also do XYZ.