Canonical location for metrics documentation - Analytics

Toby Negrin

14 Oct 14 Oct

12:45 a.m.

There are also many editing metrics on stats.wikimedia.org. -Toby On Tuesday, October 13, 2015, Neil P. Quinn <nquinn(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

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> ? -- Neil P. Quinn <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>, product analyst Wikimedia Foundation

Reply

Dan Andreescu

1:34 p.m.

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

Reply

Marcel Ruiz Forns

2:55 p.m.

...

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(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 > > -- *Marcel Ruiz Forns* Analytics Developer Wikimedia Foundation

Reply

Aaron Halfaker

3:04 p.m.

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(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

-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

Reply

Marcel Ruiz Forns

8:26 p.m.

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 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(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. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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 Forns* Analytics Developer Wikimedia Foundation

Reply

Jonathan Morgan

3:27 p.m.

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(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

-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>

Reply

Aaron Halfaker

3:32 p.m.

...

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

Reply

Leila Zia

6:30 p.m.

Makes sense to me. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Neil P. Quinn <nquinn(a)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(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 _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

Reply

Aaron Halfaker

6:57 p.m.

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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Makes sense to me. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Neil P. Quinn <nquinn(a)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(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 _______________________________________________ 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

Reply

Dan Andreescu

6:56 p.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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Makes sense to me. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Neil P. Quinn <nquinn(a)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(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 _______________________________________________ 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

Reply

Dan Andreescu

5:06 p.m.

...

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.

Reply

Nuria Ruiz

5:48 p.m.

...

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. _______________________________________________ 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

Reply

Jonathan Morgan

6:23 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Guillaume Paumier <gpaumier(a)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(a)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)>

Reply

Dan Andreescu

20 Oct 20 Oct

noon

On Monday, October 19, 2015, Legoktm <legoktm.wikipedia(a)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?

Reply