Paul, I happen to agree that the way content changes is one of the most
fascinating things that we have. My work with the Analytics team won't be
done until we have a nice way to do this kind of research. Right now,
people can use the historical dumps but that's very unfriendly.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Paul J. Weiss <paul(a)paulweiss.info> wrote:
> For my particular interests, I am fine with that. But I think historians
> would disagree. A lot can be learned from documented ideas that didn't come
> to fruition.
>
> Paul
>
> At 2015-10-15 11:08 am, you wrote:
>
> Hi,Â
>
> You are all correct on archiving old pages that might be of research
> interest. We are all for that. The pages we hope to delete are about
> systems that never existed but were just talked about, and the idea was
> replaced by something else that exists now. It doesn't make sense for us to
> have those pages. Anything that is about something has been worked on, and
> is not active any more will be archived.
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Paul J. Weiss <paul(a)paulweiss.info>
> wrote:
>
> I am definitely on the side of archiving rather than deleting. Some of my
> research interests involve looking at past documentation. Retrieving
> outdated documentation is okay, as long as it is clear immediately that it
> is indeed outdated. We can also enable searching from within WMF webspace
> to exclude outdated documentation. There are many ways to accomplish these
> goals: adding "Archived" to the title, making a new namespace, using
> categories, etc.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul J. Weiss
> PhD student, Information science
> University of Washington
>
> At 2015-10-15Â 10:48 am, you wrote:
>
> >I've always thought that blanking the page and replacing it with a
> template which says it's historical and links to the historical version
> of the page would be a good solution that balances preserving history with
> deemphasizing outdated information.
>
> This would make info show up in searches still, which we definitely do not
> want. Seems that deleting is a better option.
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Neil P. Quinn <nquinn(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> I've always thought that blanking the page and replacing it with a
> template which says it's historical and links to the historical version of
> the page would be a good solution that balances preserving history with
> deemphasizing outdated information.
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org
> > wrote: > We have a documentation cleanup day coming up soon, and we've
> just got > delete permissions so we can actually clean.
> Please don't delete old content, mark it as {{historical}} or {{outdated}}
> and archive it instead.
>
>
> I'm all for following the norm here, but wouldn't that mean it still shows
> up in searches? That's what I'm trying to avoid, minimizing the
> confusion.Â
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
>
>
> --
> Neil P. Quinn <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>,
> product analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
>
>
> --
> --Madhu :)
> _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
For my particular interests, I am fine with that.
But I think historians would disagree. A lot can
be learned from documented ideas that didn't come to fruition.
Paul
At 2015-10-15 11:08 am, you wrote:
>Hi,Â
>
>You are all correct on archiving old pages that
>might be of research interest. We are all for
>that. The pages we hope to delete are about
>systems that never existed but were just talked
>about, and the idea was replaced by something
>else that exists now. It doesn't make sense for
>us to have those pages. Anything that is about
>something has been worked on, and is not active any more will be archived.
>
>On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Paul J. Weiss
><<mailto:paul@paulweiss.info>paul(a)paulweiss.info> wrote:
>I am definitely on the side of archiving rather
>than deleting. Some of my research interests
>involve looking at past documentation.
>Retrieving outdated documentation is okay, as
>long as it is clear immediately that it is
>indeed outdated. We can also enable searching
>from within WMF webspace to exclude outdated
>documentation. There are many ways to accomplish
>these goals: adding "Archived" to the title,
>making a new namespace, using categories, etc.
>
>Paul
>
>Paul J. Weiss
>PhD student, Information science
>University of Washington
>
>At 2015-10-15Â 10:48 am, you wrote:
>> >I've always thought that blanking the page
>> and replacing it with a template which says
>> it's historical andà linksà to the
>> historical version of the page would be a good
>> solution that balances preserving history with
>> deemphasizing outdated information.
>>
>>This would make info show up in searches still,
>>which we definitely do not want. Seems that deleting is a better option.
>>
>>On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Neil P. Quinn
>><<mailto:nquinn@wikimedia.org>nquinn(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>I've always thought that blanking the page and
>replacing it with a template which says it's
>historical and links to the historical version
>of the page would be a good solution that
>balances preserving history with deemphasizing outdated information.
>On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Dan Andreescu
><<mailto:dandreescu@wikimedia.org>dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org > wrote:
> > We have a documentation cleanup day coming up
> soon, and we've just got
> > delete permissions so we can actually clean.
>Please don't delete old content, mark it as {{historical}} or
>{{outdated}} and archive it instead.
>
>
>I'm all for following the norm here, but
>wouldn't that mean it still shows up in
>searches?ÃÂ That's what I'm trying to avoid,
>minimizing the confusion.Ã
>
>_______________________________________________
>Analytics mailing list
><mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org>Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
>
>
>--
><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>Neil
>P. Quinn, product analyst
>Wikimedia Foundation
>
>_______________________________________________
>Analytics mailing list
><mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org>Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Analytics mailing list
><mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org>Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>_______________________________________________
>Analytics mailing list
><mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org>Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
>
>
>--
>--Madhu :)
>_______________________________________________
>Analytics mailing list
>Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Hi,
You are all correct on archiving old pages that might be of research
interest. We are all for that. The pages we hope to delete are about
systems that never existed but were just talked about, and the idea was
replaced by something else that exists now. It doesn't make sense for us to
have those pages. Anything that is about something has been worked on, and
is not active any more will be archived.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Paul J. Weiss <paul(a)paulweiss.info> wrote:
> I am definitely on the side of archiving rather than deleting. Some of my
> research interests involve looking at past documentation. Retrieving
> outdated documentation is okay, as long as it is clear immediately that it
> is indeed outdated. We can also enable searching from within WMF webspace
> to exclude outdated documentation. There are many ways to accomplish these
> goals: adding "Archived" to the title, making a new namespace, using
> categories, etc.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul J. Weiss
> PhD student, Information science
> University of Washington
>
> At 2015-10-15 10:48 am, you wrote:
>
> >I've always thought that blanking the page and replacing it with a
> template which says it's historical and *links* to the historical
> version of the page would be a good solution that balances preserving
> history with deemphasizing outdated information.
>
> This would make info show up in searches still, which we definitely do not
> want. Seems that deleting is a better option.
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Neil P. Quinn <nquinn(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> I've always thought that blanking the page and replacing it with a
> template which says it's historical and links to the historical version of
> the page would be a good solution that balances preserving history with
> deemphasizing outdated information.
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org
> > wrote:
> > We have a documentation cleanup day coming up soon, and we've just got
> > delete permissions so we can actually clean.
>
> Please don't delete old content, mark it as {{historical}} or
> {{outdated}} and archive it instead.
>
>
> I'm all for following the norm here, but wouldn't that mean it still shows
> up in searches? That's what I'm trying to avoid, minimizing the
> confusion.Â
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
>
>
> --
> Neil P. Quinn <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>,
> product analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
--
--Madhu :)
I am definitely on the side of archiving rather
than deleting. Some of my research interests
involve looking at past documentation. Retrieving
outdated documentation is okay, as long as it is
clear immediately that it is indeed outdated. We
can also enable searching from within WMF
webspace to exclude outdated documentation. There
are many ways to accomplish these goals: adding
"Archived" to the title, making a new namespace, using categories, etc.
Paul
Paul J. Weiss
PhD student, Information science
University of Washington
At 2015-10-15 10:48 am, you wrote:
> >I've always thought that blanking the page and
> replacing it with a template which says it's
> historical and links to the historical
> version of the page would be a good solution
> that balances preserving history with deemphasizing outdated information.
>
>This would make info show up in searches still,
>which we definitely do not want. Seems that deleting is a better option.
>
>On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Neil P. Quinn
><<mailto:nquinn@wikimedia.org>nquinn(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>I've always thought that blanking the page and
>replacing it with a template which says it's
>historical and links to the historical version
>of the page would be a good solution that
>balances preserving history with deemphasizing outdated information.
>
>On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Dan Andreescu
><<mailto:dandreescu@wikimedia.org>dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > We have a documentation cleanup day coming up soon, and we've just got
> > delete permissions so we can actually clean.
>
>Please don't delete old content, mark it as {{historical}} or
>{{outdated}} and archive it instead.
>
>
>I'm all for following the norm here, but
>wouldn't that mean it still shows up in
>searches? That's what I'm trying to avoid, minimizing the confusion.Â
>
>_______________________________________________
>Analytics mailing list
><mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org>Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
>
>
>--
><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>Neil
>P. Quinn, product analyst
>Wikimedia Foundation
>
>_______________________________________________
>Analytics mailing list
><mailto:Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org>Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Analytics mailing list
>Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
So then why move documentation that is used by a larger audience to wikitech. Your explanation shows precisely why consolidating the info to meta would make more sense. It would also get more eyeballs on the documentation. It would also allow the WMF to better leverage that free volunteer workforce that likes to loiter on meta. Just my opinion though.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------From: Nuria RuizDate: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 6:49 PMTo: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics.;Subject:Re: [Analytics] Canonical location for metrics documentation
We are talking about two different types of documentation:
* Infrastructure DocsJust like the rest of WMF infrastructure the lawful place for this is wikitech. It is documentation technical in nature of interest to engineers working at the WMF mostly. It makes sense most people do not know about it, you wouldn't unless you have worked for WMF or committed code in a volunteer capacity.
*Metrics definitionsOur metrics are not different from research's metrics, we execute on metrics researchers have defined. If research wants to keeps those in meta I think it should not be a problem.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
As far as the analytics engineering / infrastructure stuff is concerned, I'd like to finish consolidating on wikitech first. When that's all clean and beautiful we can move everything all at once to meta. I'm not against that at all if people ask for it.
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Hi there -
Just wanted to give a heads up about
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T114542, which is R&D work to be
discussed at the summit. Depending on the recommended approach that emerges
we'd necessarily need to be mindful about the need to update stuff in
analytics pipelines (e.g., pageviews, but certainly more).
I've added Kevin to the ticket for visibility, but thought I'd post it
here, too.
-Adam
Just wondering here but...if there is simply a desire to consolidate, then why not consolidate to meta and elinate wikitech. Its also not a perfect solution but as someone brought up before, a lot more people are familiar with meta than wikitech.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------From: Marcel Ruiz FornsDate: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 4:27 PMTo: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics.;Subject:Re: [Analytics] Canonical location for metrics documentation
We could, in this case, create an Analytics' metric documentation page in Wikitech, that comprehends all metrics that we Analytics are aware of and consider part of our pipeline. Some of them would be described in Wikitech itself, and some others would point Research's page in Meta or any other older sources. But in any case, a user that landed in Wikitech's metrics page would be able to browse all metric information. And we'd have a single source of information from the Analytics' point of view.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
*"We need to write a bot to fix broken links."
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Drawbacks: People who maintain and use those metric pages don't want you to move them for a myriad of reasons.
Many of us are confident that Meta is the Right(TM) place for themMeta has become the place where we document studies. Our core metrics should be accompanied by a study of their meaning and the robustness of their parameters.Meta is where the research community of Wikimedia stuff generally hangs out.It would cause disruption in our work to remove the metrics pages. We'd need to write a bit to fix the broken links.
What are the benefits of temporarily moving all of this content to Wikitech? You might end up moving it back after all. Is it easier to edit the documentation on Wikitech than it is on Meta in some way?
-Aaron
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Strongly oppose moving the Research namespace hosted metrics documentation off Meta. It's s'posed to be broadly accessible. Wikitech is on few peoples' radar. Mediawiki.org is for software documentation. Meta is the central wiki for the movement (however imperfect). - J
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I propose we move everything to wikitech now
I don't think that is feasible or reasonable for the documentation that is currently on Meta.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
We have a documentation cleanup day coming up soon, and we've just got delete permissions so we can actually clean. We've been moving everything Analytics-infrastructure related to wikitech and that's where we'd prefer to see everything. The nuanced purpose of each wiki is great, but before we can get to that, we have to establish a trusted, complete, and discoverable source of documentation. Then we can start catering to the audiences of each wiki.
I propose we move everything to wikitech now, and establish a single page on meta and mediawiki that point to the different main pages on wikitech.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Neil P. Quinn, 14/10/2015 02:30:
We currently have metrics documentation in two different places
What sort of documentation do you have in mind? Meta has the definitions which WMF hopes to see used in other fields as well, while MediaWiki.org and wikitech have technical documentation about stats.wikimedia.org and other stuff produced by Analytics.
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
--
Jonathan T. MorganSenior Design ResearcherWikimedia FoundationUser:Jmorgan (WMF)
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
--
Marcel Ruiz FornsAnalytics DeveloperWikimedia Foundation
Having this info centralized will be great! I don't care that much about
what the location is called, but I also lean toward Meta over MediaWiki.
Paul J. Weiss
PhD student, Information science
University of Washington
At 2015-10-13 05:30 pm, you wrote:
>We currently have metrics documentation in two different places:
> * Different pages in the Research namespace on Meta (many but not all
> of them in
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Metrics>Category:Metrics).
> *
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Metric_definitions>mediawiki:Analytics/Metrics
>
>
>To avoid duplication, which of these should be the canonical location? I
>lean towards Meta, since it's not just MediaWiki developers who'll be
>interested.
>
>As a follow-up question, if you think it should be Meta as well, what
>should be the primary gateway to this documentation? Category:Metrics? An
>updated version of
><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics>Research:Metrics?
><https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Metric_definitions#Active_editor>Research:Metrics
>standardization?
>
>--
><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>Neil P. Quinn,
>product analyst
>Wikimedia Foundation
>_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list
>Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
I'm trying to gather some stats on the use of Echo notifications across
wikis, and I'd like to join the `echo_events` table with the `user` table
for a given wiki.
I can get `echo_events` on x1-analytics-slave, but *not* on
analytics-store; I can get `user` on analytics-store, but *not *on
x1-analytics-slave. This makes it impossible to join the two.
Is there some other machine where both the tables are present? If not, is
there a good reason for this split?
--
Neil P. Quinn <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>,
product analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
Dear Wikimedia Analytics team,
My name is Albrecht Wirthmann. I am working in a task team Big Data at Eurostat. This is the European statistical office, which makes part of the European Commission. The task team is exploring new data sources for their feasibility of producing official statistics. We have been looking at various internet data sources including Wikimedia. The idea that we are currently following up is identifying Wikipedia pages in English that are referring to World Heritage sites and to analyse the number and development of page views of those pages as an indicator of exposure to culture. For this purpose we downloaded the page views files from http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-ez/. The data should be later on included in a pocket book showing statistics on culture in the European Union.
I am contacting you to make you aware of our intentions, to ask if there would be any concerns related to our project and to possibly have a chat with you and your team to ask some technical questions and about the possibility of getting some additional data. We would be interested in page hits by country in order to be more specific on the statistics that we would compile.
We would be very glad about a positive reply and remain at your disposal,
Kind regards,
Albrecht Wirthmann
TF Big Data
Eurostat
BECH building
5, rue Alphonse Weicker
L 2721 Luxembourg
Albrecht.Wirthmann(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Albrecht.Wirthmann@ec.europa.eu>
Tel +352 4301 33728
Fax +352 4301 34359
http://www.cros-portal.eu/content/big-data