Hi there, just wanted to touch on the autoredirection stuff. The thing mentioned on autoredirection is an enhancement for accesses to m.wikipedia.org/ webroot (not articles) for Wikipedia Zero users. As before, non-Wikipedia Zero users accessing m.wikipedia.org/ webroot continue to get redirected to en.m.wikipedia.org.
It seems thus far that the enhancement for Wikipedia Zero users isn't causing harm, and our thinking is that if that holds, we should examine some application of the approach to m.wikipedia.org/ non-Wikipedia Zero-sourced access as well.
As an extension of this thinking, looking into alternative placement of "Read in another language" or even a language shortlist (e.g., an API endpoint looks at Accept-Language and the top 3 pertinent languages get shimmed in) above the fold pertinent for the given user, taking into account JavaScript support level, may be worthwhile.
-Adam
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 AM, C. Scott Ananian cananian@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian <
cananian@wikimedia.org
wrote:
- Is the rise in global south page views specifically to *enwiki*, or
is it to local wikis?
Not actually an either/or. The answer seems to me to be "yes", i.e.
all
wikis -- that is, all projects, all languages.
It may *seem to you* to be "yes", but the data indicates that the answer differs, depending where you look. For example, the data clearly indicates that the stunning rise in Iran is almost entirely due to enwiki. enwiki gains over 80 million page views, fawiki gains only 10 million. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics for a convincing graph.
I think it's important that we determine the actual answers to these questions, instead of trusting our instincts.
I definitely agree. I had misread your question to mean "is the rise computed across all wikis", which is indeed not what you were asking. I apologize for the irrelevant answer.
Some definitely do. Another major factor, mentioned today, is that in
some
countries, mobile devices just don't come with good local languages support, and people are putting up with that and using what the device
does
give them, which are generally the major, colonial languages.
Hm, the word "colonial" bothers me here. I know you mean "historically colonial", but in the modern world English is also a trade language, not just a formerly-colonial language. Much access to enwiki is due to its trade-language status.
Certainly, there are very strong economic incentives to use English these days, and additionally other incentives, such as prestige real and imagined, still operating (and those, themselves, are still ripples of colonialism), but I did not mean 'colonial' here particularly strongly. I could have written "European", I suppose, except there are many languages in Europe, and only a handful have been colonial languages. But the term is not important here, I think.
I feel strongly that we have a moral obligation to offer good local language support, but I also feel that we shouldn't label and dismiss readers who want to learn/practice/find information in a trade language. (This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of simplewiki, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.)
I don't see that I (or anyone) did dismiss that. In terms of our strategic goals of Reach and Participation, we are agnostic about which languages people contribute in, or consume in. In terms of our strategic goal of Diversity however, we do want to work towards adequate offerings in all languages in which people are actually seeking to consume knowledge.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
I was reading the presentation on metrics and the point about Mexico's decreasing of views on Wikipedia called my attention.
I dug into the numbers a little more; see the graphs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics
It's a bit confusing. At this moment I'm inclined to say that the computation of "decliners" was in some way erroneous; neither the page views for Mexico nor the overall pageviews for eswiki seem to support the large annual declines reported.
On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics I compute an annual decline for Mexico of 12.4% (compared to 23.2% reported at the metrics meeting), which compares to an eswiki annual decline of 4.8% (excludings bots and spiders).
So Mexico is indeed concerning -- it's declining at three times the eswiki rate. But eswiki as a whole seems like it ought to also be a concern. And I'd like to understand why I can't reproduce the much higher numbers shown in the Metrics meeting.
Thanks for taking another swing at the data. I do think it's important to get better data that we have high confidence in. We're not quite there yet.
A.
Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe