We currently have metrics documentation in two different places:
1. Different pages in the Research namespace on Meta (many but not all of them in Category:Metrics https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Metrics). 2. mediawiki:Analytics/Metrics https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Metric_definitions
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 Research:Metrics https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics? Research:Metrics standardization https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Metric_definitions#Active_editor?
There are also many editing metrics on stats.wikimedia.org.
-Toby
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@wikimedia.org 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 Category:Metrics https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Metrics). 2. mediawiki:Analytics/Metrics https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Metric_definitions
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 Research:Metrics https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics? Research:Metrics standardization https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Metric_definitions#Active_editor ?
-- Neil P. Quinn https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF, product analyst Wikimedia Foundation
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
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
I don't think that is feasible or reasonable for the documentation that is currently on Meta.
What would be the drawbacks?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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 them - Meta 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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
*"We need to write a *bot* to fix broken links."
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@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 them
- Meta 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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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@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@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 them
- Meta 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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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.
You are welcome to move the other documentation to the Research namespace on Meta :)
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not saying it's easy, but I think having documentation in more than one place is an awful experience for newcomers.
I second this as a problem. I make a joke of it each time I want to explain to a newcomer what is documented where, it's much better if we can solve it though.
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.
This can work for the type of documentation I have on Meta. Moving my current documentation out of Meta is also an option (it's really not discoverable to newcomers and those outside of the Movement) as long as I can have a bigger picture of how we envision the future of documentations.
Neil, this conversation may take some time to settle. My recommendation is that you document your work somewhere that makes sense to you based on the type of work currently documented in the different places. You can always move it out of there. Don't let figuring out where to document it becomes a barrier for documentation. :-)
Leila
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Makes sense to me.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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. Agreed
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", Agreed for all but last one, the sql will change. I will keep meta only about definitions. If you start adding "examples" , it is likely they soon will be out of date.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Makes sense to me.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
SQL is a nice formal definition for these metrics. Even though it may become out of date (the prod database doesn't change in backwards incompatible ways that often), it's still a big win for the metrics pages IMO.
-Aaron
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Nuria Ruiz nuria@wikimedia.org wrote:
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. Agreed
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", Agreed for all but last one, the sql will change. I will keep meta only about definitions. If you start adding "examples" , it is likely they soon will be out of date.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Makes sense to me.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
SQL is a nice formal definition for these metrics. Even though it may become out of date (the prod database doesn't change in backwards incompatible ways that often), it's still a big win for the metrics pages IMO.
I agree. It'll be out of date, but so is the SQL we pasted into the top of each wikimetrics metric [1]. These kinds of things are useful and hopefully get updated as query strategies improve (eg. better data warehouse schema)
[1] https://github.com/wikimedia/analytics-wikimetrics/blob/master/wikimetrics/m...
If Meta is the place for all Research documentation, then that's fantastic. I would suggest getting rid of any Research related pages on the other wikis and replacing them with a single page that points to the most organized entry point on Meta.
As to what newcomers this could be useful for, I have a list: WMF engineering staff, WMF non-engineering staff, editing community members, independent researchers, wait the list is everybody :)
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Makes sense to me.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
On 10/14/2015 06:34 AM, Dan Andreescu 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.
-- Legoktm
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.
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@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.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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@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@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.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Hi,
Le jeudi 15 octobre 2015, 10:48:44 Nuria Ruiz a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@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.
This would make info show up in searches still, which we definitely do not want. Seems that deleting is a better option.
What about turning the old pages into redirects to the new pages? That way, you keep the old content in the history, but the page now points to the correct information, and you don't break any (internal or external) inbound links/bookmarks.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Guillaume Paumier gpaumier@wikimedia.org wrote:
What about turning the old pages into redirects to the new pages? That way, you keep the old content in the history, but the page now points to the correct information, and you don't break any (internal or external) inbound links/bookmarks.
^^this
-- Guillaume Paumier
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Hi,
On 10/15/2015 10:06 AM, Dan Andreescu wrote:
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.
Yes, but that's fixable with stuff like [1] if it actually becomes a problem.
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cirrussearch-boost-templates
-- Legoktm
On Monday, October 19, 2015, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 10/15/2015 10:06 AM, Dan Andreescu wrote:
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.
Yes, but that's fixable with stuff like [1] if it actually becomes a problem.
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cirrussearch-boost-templates
This has been a problem for a few years now, I wish I knew about these templates, that seems like a great fix. One thing - does this also exclude the pages from the auto-complete searches? Or just the full cirrus searches?
Le 20/10/2015 14:00, Dan Andreescu a écrit :
On Monday, October 19, 2015, Legoktm <legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com mailto:legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, On 10/15/2015 10:06 AM, Dan Andreescu wrote: > 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. Yes, but that's fixable with stuff like [1] if it actually becomes a problem. [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cirrussearch-boost-templatesThis has been a problem for a few years now, I wish I knew about these templates, that seems like a great fix. One thing - does this also exclude the pages from the auto-complete searches? Or just the full cirrus searches?
Boost templates are used in both full text and search as you type. Note that this will affect results order but won't allow you to exclude/black-list a page from the search results.