Hoi,
English Wikipedia is to be honest the least of my concerns.It is no
different from any of the others. Like all other Wikipedias there are
significantly more items with a label in the language of the project in
Wikidata than the project has articles. So much so that the number of
deleted articles are corner cases, the number of items with BLP issues are
corner cases. I seem to remember that Wikidata has over 20% more items with
an English label (it could be 40% but I am not sure).
When you then analyse those items, you find professors of Harvard or any
other Ivy League university that have an article in another language, you
find people who should be in a category (based on WD info) but are not. You
will find errors in a project because that project has it wrong.You will
find many items with no article that are clearly notable.
When a BLP issue exists, it is typically in the text of the article not in
the data at Wikidata. So it typically does not have much bearing on
Wikidata anyway. When it does, it means that the WMF has to consider BLP
issues in an all projects point of view. So far for good reasons that has
not happened as far as I know.
When you consider search and improving search, one of the KPI's is labels
in a language. A Wikidata item already has some notability and when we can
grow the number of labels, we can improve search, coverage and likelihood
of new articles in those languages. An example is that all current
parliamentarians of India have an item but they do not have labels in the
languages of India. When we actively encourage more labels eg by exposing
them in search as we do on the Tamil Wikipedia [1] we serve the data we
hold in addition to what a local search provides.
It is particularly important for the small Wikipedias to have search
functionality that provides a rich result. I am afraid that the current
en.wp centric and problem averse attitude handicaps what we could achieve
in the small Wikipedias.
Thanks,
GerardM
[1]
On 3 August 2016 at 21:12, Deborah Tankersley <dtankersley(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi Gerard,
I chatted with Trey (who did the analysis) for his opinion on your
concerns. Here is his response:
Hi Gerard,
I wasn't trying to pass judgement on notability when the search referred to
a particular person, place, or thing, but I did
take it as a sign of
non-notability when a page had been created and then deleted for a
particular person or website. Those items could become notable in the
future, and any of them might be notable enough for Wikidata—but the
original discussion seemed to be mainly about queries to English
Wikipedia.
My conclusion, for English Wikipedia, is that
there is not some gold mine
of super high-frequency typos or new topics that we are missing out on.
More importantly, there are real privacy concerns, and simple fixes—like
requiring some number of unique IP addresses to have searched fro
something—are not enough.
I have looked at thousands of queries from about a dozen other language
Wikipedias—some in more depth than others, and admittedly not usually
sorted by frequency—but my intuition is the same as it was for English
Wikipedia: not enough of value there to override privacy concerns.
Automation is out for privacy reasons and manual review is not worth it,
so this isn't a priority for Discovery right now.
I hope that helps to further explain what we found and why we're not acting
further on this issue at this time.
Cheers,
Deb
--
Deb Tankersley
Product Manager, Discovery
IRC: debt
Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
So what do we have? It is what the most missed searches are for the
English
Wikipedia. Arguably the searches include content
that is "iffie". But
when
many people seek info on a porn site, on what
basis is it not notable?
This
is only for en.wp and the results for other
languages can be quite
different.The problem with dismissing the need for this data in this way
is
that it supports the status quo for all
Wikipedias. It does not suggest
what we can do with a porn site. We could for instance have a Wikidata
item
stating that it is a porn site and leave it at
that.
When you compare Wikidata with Wikipedia, Wikidata has significantlyu
more
data about whatever than Wikipedia does. All
subjects that are notable by
Wikidata standards and many are notable by English Wikipedia standards.
Knowing what subjects are missed in Wikipedia and what people are looking
for is important because they are the people Wikipedia misses.
NB thanks for the data, the project.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 29 July 2016 at 23:48, Deborah Tankersley <dtankersley(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Forwarding to the Wikimedia mailing list, I'm sorry for the lateness!
>
>
> --
> Deb Tankersley
> Product Manager, Discovery
> IRC: debt
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Trey Jones <tjones(a)wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [discovery] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Improving search (sort of)
> To: A public mailing list about Wikimedia Search and Discovery
projects <
discovery(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com>
I decided to look into this as my 10% project last week. It ended up
being
> a 15% project, but I wanted to finish it up.
>
> I carefully reviewed and categorized the top 100 "unsuccessful" (i.e.,
> zero-results) queries from May 2016, and skimmed the top 1,000 from
May,
> and skimmed and compared the top 100 / 1,000
for June.
>
> The top result (with several variants in the top 100) is a porn site
that
has had a
wiki page created and deleted several times. Various websites
round out the top 10. Internet personalities and websites dominate the
top
100 and several have had pages created and
deleted over the years.
There's
> strong evidence of links being used for some queries—though I didn't
try
to
> track them down. There's plenty of personally identifiable information
in
> the top 1000 most frequent queries. More
than 10% of the queries (by
> volume) get good results from the completion suggester or "did you
mean"
spelling
suggestions, and more than 10% have some results approximately
two
> months later (i.e., late last week).
>
> Obvious refinements to the search strategy would eliminate so many
> high-frequency queries that any useful mining would be down to slogging
> through the low-impact long tail.
>
> I don’t think there’s a lot here worth extracting, though others may
> disagree. The privacy concerns expressed earlier are genuine, and
simple
attempts
to filter PII (using patterns, minimum IP counts, etc) are not
guaranteed to be effective.
For lots more details (but no actual queries), see here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:TJones_(WMF)/Notes/Top_Unsuccessful_Sea…
—Trey
Trey Jones
Software Engineer, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Trey Jones <tjones(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>
> > Finally, if this is important enough and the task gets prioritized,
I'd
be
> willing to dive back in and go through the process once and pull out
the
> top zero-results queries, this time with
basic bot exclusion and IP
> deduplication—which we didn't do early on because we didn't realize
what
> a
> > mess the data was. We could process a week or a month of data and
> > categorize the top 100 to 500 results in terms of personal info,
junk,
> > porn, and whatever other categories we
want or that bubble up from
the
> > data, and perhaps publish the
non-personal-info part of the list as
an
>
example, either to persuade ourselves that this is worth pursuing, or
as
> a
> > clearer counter to future calls to do so.
> > —Trey
> >
> >>
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "James Heilman" <jmh649(a)gmail.com>
> >> Date: Jul 15, 2016 06:33
> >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Improving search (sort of)
> >> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Cc:
> >>
> >> A while ago I requested a list of the "most frequently searched for
> terms
> >> for which no Wikipedia articles are returned". This would allow the
> >> community to than create redirect or new pages as appropriate and
help
> >> address the "zero results
rate" of about 30%.
> >>
> >> While we are still waiting for this data I have recently come
across
a
> >> list
> >> of the most frequently clicked on redlinks on En WP produced by
Andrew
Many
of
>> these can be reasonably addressed with a redirect as the issue is
often
> >> capitals.
> >>
> >> Do anyone know where things are at with respect to producing the
list
of
> most
search for terms that return nothing?
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
_______________________________________________
discovery mailing list
discovery(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>