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outdated documentation is okay, as long as it is clear immediately that it
is indeed outdated.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to exclude outdated documentation.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deemphasizing outdated information.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deemphasizing outdated information.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