We're currently working on a grant proposal that is related to the usability for uploading and embedding media files to Wikimedia Commons. (This is an area that we will likely not be able to address in detail as part of the Stanton project, so we're trying to parcel it into a separate project.) As part of this proposal, I would like to make a compelling case that pictures and other media uploaded to Commons benefit from strongly from the increased visibility, especially through Wikipedia articles. I'd also like to demonstrate that images get used in multiple languages and multiple projects.
The simplest research approach that any volunteer could take is to take a sample (say 50 featured media and 50 random ones) and to catalog in a spreadsheet usage across Wikimedia projects, using the CheckUsage tool. But I'm sure there are other approaches - both quantitative and qualitative - that might work as well, e.g. based on Wikipedia article traffic statistics.
I'd love to see some volunteer input into this question, which essentially boils down: Why is Wikimedia Commons awesome, and why is it worth investing in to make it even better? I've started a page on Meta here if you want to contribute ideas on-wiki:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Case_for_Commons
But feel free to e-mail me off-list as well. :-)
Thanks for any and all help, Erik
Erik Moeller schrieb:
The simplest research approach that any volunteer could take is to take a sample (say 50 featured media and 50 random ones) and to catalog in a spreadsheet usage across Wikimedia projects, using the CheckUsage tool.
CheckUsage has a bulk mode and a csv output mode... if you combine them, there's not much left for the volunteer to do :)
-- daniel
2009/1/8 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
The simplest research approach that any volunteer could take is to take a sample (say 50 featured media and 50 random ones) and to catalog in a spreadsheet usage across Wikimedia projects, using the CheckUsage tool. But I'm sure there are other approaches - both quantitative and qualitative - that might work as well, e.g. based on Wikipedia article traffic statistics.
CheckUsage being basically nonfunctional on en:wp is a problem.
Is there any en:wp-specific tool that could be made to check this stuff? Even a bot on a weekly run or whatever.
- d.
Hi,
2009/1/8 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/1/8 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
The simplest research approach that any volunteer could take is to take a sample (say 50 featured media and 50 random ones) and to catalog in a spreadsheet usage across Wikimedia projects, using the CheckUsage tool. But I'm sure there are other approaches - both quantitative and qualitative - that might work as well, e.g. based on Wikipedia article traffic statistics.
CheckUsage being basically nonfunctional on en:wp is a problem.
This is a temporary problem.
Is there any en:wp-specific tool that could be made to check this stuff? Even a bot on a weekly run or whatever.
In the mean time you can use the ancestor: http://www.juelich.de/avatar/check-usage/
(no support)
Bye, Tim.
2009/1/9 Tim 'avatar' Bartel wikipedia@computerkultur.org:
2009/1/8 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
CheckUsage being basically nonfunctional on en:wp is a problem.
This is a temporary problem.
Oh, good.
Is there any en:wp-specific tool that could be made to check this stuff? Even a bot on a weekly run or whatever.
In the mean time you can use the ancestor: http://www.juelich.de/avatar/check-usage/ (no support)
:-D Excellent!
- d.
2009/1/8 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org: As part of this proposal, I would like to
make a compelling case that pictures and other media uploaded to Commons benefit from strongly from the increased visibility, especially through Wikipedia articles. I'd also like to demonstrate that images get used in multiple languages and multiple projects.
This is similar to a discussion I started in July, called "Institutional stats reports" http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2008-July/003924.html.
Domas' wikistats doesn't include image view logs. To be useful, such logs would aggregate stats of all different size thumbnails. I opened a bug report to request this data in late July. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14890
WMF has the data directly, why not provide it? Instead of suggesting volunteers go the long way around which is ultimately less accurate.
Beyond view stats I can think of a few other arguments which I will write up on the wiki page.
cheers Brianna