Keep in mind that, when I say "metrics documentation", I'm not referring to
documentation about Hive
<https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Cluster/Hive>, the webrequest
logs <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data/Webrequest>, or
EventLogging <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/EventLogging>.
To my mind, those are infrastructure topics that are relevant mainly to
Wikimedia (not MediaWiki) engineers, and so belong on Wikitech.
I'm talking about documentation relevant to analysts, researchers, and end
users of metrics: "this is how we define an *edit*", "this is why we use 5
edits as the cutoff for an active editor", "this is sample SQL for counting
surviving new active editors", and so on. I think that kind of information
belongs on Meta (and not on
mediawiki.org, which was the original thrust of
my question).
Does that seem like a sensible split to people, or am I just agreeing with
one side of the debate?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
I think having documentation in more than one place is
an awful experience
for newcomers.
Which newcomers are you referring to? Newcomers to the WMF engineering
staff or newcomers to research/analytics of Wikimedia projects?
It's OK to not understand the different purposes of our Wikis right away,
but I don't think that is a good reason to undermine their purposes. I
certainly don't see why wikitech is a desirable hub for this kind of
information. From my point of view Wikitech is the *worst* potential hub
of information that is not specific to engineering.
What, exactly, is the trouble with having metrics documentation on Meta?
How would moving *some of the the documentation* to wikitech help that?
(Because you're not going to move research project documentation without
even stronger disagreement from the locals.)
-Aaron
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(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
I respect the fact that these kinds of distinctions make sense to people
who are already familiar with the movement and research / analytics. But
to someone relatively new, and to me for the first year at the foundation,
those distinctions made zero sense.
I'm not saying it's easy, but I think having documentation in more than
one place is an awful experience for newcomers. We'll continue to move
things to wikitech and leave nice high level landing pages on the other
wikis. Others are welcome to act differently if they so see fit. I know a
lot of research stuff is on meta, so maybe in your case it makes sense to
standardize on meta and point to it from the other wikis.
You're of course welcome to disagree with me but I'd suggest first trying
to come up with examples of newcomers who understand the purpose of our
different wikis perfectly right away.
_______________________________________________
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
--
Neil P. Quinn <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>,
product analyst
Wikimedia Foundation