Hi,
I noticed that when I'm searching on Google, many Wikipedia results are in the form of lang-code.zero.wikipedia.org, perhaps just since a day or two ago.
I'm not sure what items are indexed this way, but it would really be a trouble - there is no link on the page that jumps you to the standard site (even the notice links to main page of m.wikipedia.org, not the corresponding article on m.wikipedia.org)
Regards,
Benjamin Chen / [[User:Bencmq]]
Hi Nemo,
Good questions:
I'm trying to work out what the underlying "real" level of editing has
been since 2009, not because I think it a good metric, I'm aware that edit
count is only a good measure of edit count. But because others are getting
concerned about a drop in edit count, and I'd like to try to come up with a
less bad metric than raw edit count.
As for your critique of the Article For Creation process " I don't
understand. If a page is created in a namespace and moved to ns0, its whole
history is counted. If history is not moved, or even worse it is not moved
AND the creator is not the author of the content, something stinks. But why
would people be doing something which is both wrong and more difficult?"
I'm not a fan of that process either, but I'm aware that it does happen on
EN wiki, and that it is steering many edits away from mainspace.
Regards
Jonathan
On 28 August 2013 16:45, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> WereSpielChequers, 28/08/2013 17:14:
>
> Just because the edit filter is enabled by default doesn't mean that
>> every wiki has people optimising it to find vandalism in their language.
>>
>
> This is what the bugzilla link is about. :)
>
>
>
>> I'm trying to work out what the underlying "real" level of editing has
>> been since 2009.
>>
>
> For what purposes? The following sentence seems to be about something else:
>
>
> The problem with measuring either unreverted edits or
>> edits by active users is that the edit filters don't just lose us a
>> large proportion of the vandalism that we used to get, they also lose us
>> a lot of goodfaith edits that have ceased to be necessary, including the
>> vandalism reversions, warnings and block messages that have been
>> automated away by the edit filter.
>>
>> The stats at
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm>get round part
>> of that by only measuring mainspace edits, so they don't count the
>> warnings and block messages that we've lost. Though they presumably have
>> lost the reversion of vandalism that has now been prevented by the edit
>> filter.
>>
>
> That's fine if we're interested in the editing activity considered as a
> good thing (rather than in "how much time is wasted doing X").
>
> But measuring article space edits has its own problems - the
>> more article creation has shifted to sandboxes in userspace and
>> especially to on EN wiki to WP space as part of Articles for creation,
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_**
>> Articles_for_creation<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation>>
>> the
>>
>> less meaningful it is to measure the different spaces as if their
>> boundaries were immutable.
>>
>
> I don't understand. If a page is created in a namespace and moved to ns0,
> its whole history is counted. If history is not moved, or even worse it is
> not moved AND the creator is not the author of the content, something
> stinks. But why would people be doing something which is both wrong and
> more difficult?
>
>
>
>> I appreciate that some of these things are difficult to measure, but
>> sometimes it is the difficult stuff that is important.
>>
>
> Yes but if it's important you need to define your goals or you'll never go
> anywhere.
>
>
> A case in point
>> being the increasing tendency to revert unsourced edits on EN Wiki. The
>> stats you quote treat all reversions the same, so the rise in simply
>> reverting unsourced edits would appear to be more than masked by a
>> combination of the loss of vandalism reversions to the edit filter, and
>> the inreasing speed and sophistication of the vandalfighting bots.
>>
>
> Again, I have no idea how this relates to all the above. Is measuring this
> specific thing your actual goal? You will never be able to see it in
> aggregated stats about editing activity, whatever filter or definition you
> use.
>
> Nemo
>
Hi Fae,
I hadn't factored in the spam
filter,<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist> that's
a separate process that just focusses on sites which we don't want more
links to - presumably because people have tried spamlinking them on
wikipedia. The edit
filter,<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_filter>originally
known as the abuse filter is more complex and among other uses
doesn't allow certain types of edits.. Both are generally deployed but can
be tailored per wiki, I'm assuming that the edit filter is more heavily
tuned by language, not least because a rude word in one language will often
have innocuous meanings in another. Hence my question here, I am hoping for
cross wiki input as this won't just be an EN wiki issue but some others may
have very different experiences with them and may even have found a way to
measure their effect
Hope those links give the info you requested.
Regards
WSC
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:42:22 +0100
From: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Has the underlying level of edits risen or
fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009?
Message-ID:
<CAH7nnD0tACeBcE77mBZ1JQqar78=w+SB-SD-z-_GKr_32bws-w(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 28/08/2013, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone come up with a formulae for the ratio between vandalism
> prevented by the edit filters and lost edits on Wiki?
...
> Regards
Hi WSC,
Could you link to where there is a definition of what the edit filters
are and what they are supposed to do? I recall having problems
including urls like youtube, but I'm not sure if that blacklist is the
same thing. If this was something only implemented on the English
Wikipedia project, it might be more relevant to raise on wikien-l.
Cheers,
Fae
Has anyone come up with a formulae for the ratio between vandalism
prevented by the edit filters and lost edits on Wiki?
I'm trying to work out whether the "true" editing level on the English
Wikipedia and others which use the edit Filters has risen or fallen since
the Edit Filters were introduced in 2009. It turns out that this is a
complex question, partly because the way that vandals respond to the edit
filter is different to the way they respond to reversion and warning on
wiki, and of course the filters have steadily got more complex and
effective over the last four years. Also different filters will have a
different ratio between vandalism filtered out and vandalism (and vandalism
reversion, warnings, AIV reports and block notices) "lost" from Wikipedia.
It would be great if we could simply assume that someone who in 2013 tries
to vandalise five articles but is prevented by the edit filter would pre
2009 have made 5 vandalism edits that would have been responded to with
five reversions, four warnings, one AIV report, one block message 0.01
barnstars and 0.3 archive edits on the AIV page. But it isn't that simple,
not least because of the psychology, just as teenage vandals are probably
less likely to persist if they discover that the person they are competing
with is some grey haired pensioner; so in theory fighting against a
computer that is faster than you is less satisfying than doing so against a
fellow human.
So I was wondering if there are Wikipedia language versions that have not
yet implemented edit filters, or where the filters have changed so little
that there are long periods where any change in editing levels has not been
caused by improvement in the filters.
This is of more than academic interest, if we simply ignore this effect and
make decisions based on the remaining raw edits after the edit filter, then
the more efficient the edit filter gets at preventing vandalism the more we
would be beating ourselves up for losing edits.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
Hello,
This is a reminder that the Language Engineering team will be hosting
an hour long bug triage for R-T-L bugs later today, i.e. August 28,
2013 at 1700 UTC/1000 PDT on the IRC channel #mediawiki-i18n
(Freenode).
etherpad link: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/BugTriage-i18n-2013-08
Thanks
Runa
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Runa Bhattacharjee <rbhattacharjee(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Subject: Language Engineering bug triage session for RTL language bugs
- Aug 28th 2013, Wednesday 1700 UTC/1000PDT
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia
Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, MediaWiki
internationalisation <mediawiki-i18n(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hello,
The Wikimedia Language Engineering team will be hosting a bug triage
session on Wednesday, August 28th 2013 at 17:00 UTC (10:00 PDT) for
some of the bugs that exist in languages written from Right-to-Left
(RTL). During this 1 hour session we will be using the etherpad
linked below to collaborate. We have already listed some bugs, but
please feel free to add more bugs (or file new ones!), and comments
about what you’d like to see addressed during the session. You can
send questions directly to me on email or IRC (nick: arrbee). Please
see below for the event details.
Thank you.
regards
Runa
=== Event Details ===
# What: Bug triage session for RTL language bugs
# Date: August 28, 2013 (Wednesday)
# Time: 1700-1800 UTC, 1000-1100 PDT (Timezone conversion:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20130828T1700
)
# IRC Channel: #mediawiki-i18n (Freenode)
# Etherpad: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/BugTriage-i18n-2013-08
Questions can be sent to: runa at wikimedia dot org
--
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
Heya folks :)
Denny and I will be doing another office hour for all things Wikidata
after Wikimania. Everyone is welcome to ask questions about Wikidata.
We'll be doing this on IRC in #wikimedia-office and start with a quick
update in the current state of Wikidata and its development. It'll be
on the 26th of August at 16:00 UTC. For your timezone see
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Wikidata+office+ho…
Hope to see many of you there.
Cheers
Lydia
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Technical Projects
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" <andreengels(a)gmail.com>:
> Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> paragraph 3:
>
> "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
>
> "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet
> access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered
> or used via these services."
>
> If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF
actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the
same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad
intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased
because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is
nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.
Rupert
hi,
most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare
cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
the mailing list:
is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?
just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by
user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
equipment, and modes of communication.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
rupert.
Hi all,
The Individual Engagement Grants Committee is still looking for a few new
members to join us!
We know, you maybe have committee fatigue and are always being asked to
join something. Or, you've never served on a committee before and it seems
like too much work. But this will be fun, we promise!
Some reasons why you might want to join:
1. IEG projects might impact a wiki you love. Help decide which individual
community members and which new ideas should get grants of up to $30,000 to
improve one or more Wikimedia projects.
2. We're reasonably organized, but not overly serious. We've got a scoring
rubric to help you evaluate proposals, a cat mascot to keep you company,
and COI guidelines to keep you safe.
3. We're interested in learning new things, and so are you. We can teach
you about grantmaking to individuals and you'll teach us about some awesome
Wikimedia thing that you know all about.
4. You can focus on reviewing proposals related to an area of interest you
like best: Online community organizing, Offline outreach and partnerships,
Tools, or Research.
5. We think having lots of people with lots of different perspectives help
decide things is a good idea, and so do you.
6. It is easy to sign up. Please add your name, a statement and answer 2
brief questions by Friday 30 Aug.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Committee
Best wishes,
Siko & the IEG Committee
--
Siko Bouterse
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. *
*Donate <https://donate.wikimedia.org> or click the "edit" button today,
and help us make it a reality!*