Hoi, How do you compare functionality that is totally broken with "another tool". Or is your tool broken as well?
As to Commons, we once had a Wikidata provided search tool that allowed search in any language. It was "adopted" by general search and is now no longer functional. In essence it provided a service where an eight year old could find pictures in any language. When asked if the functionality could be revived, the answer was "that is not our mission".
What we see is another type of bias. It is the bias that comes with the highest usage. It is not considered why the other functionality is hardly used given that it is abandoned, given that it is broken, given that it is not used by our group. Who in the WMF is the designated champion for projects like Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Commons? Seeks out what we can do and make a bigger impact? Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 22:49, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 21:08, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
there was mention of there being 50,000 "books" attached to English
Wikipedia. We
have individual images on Commons that probably have been used more
often than
that
Over a thousand times more than that, for several icon files:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MostLinkedFilesEven our most used photograph is used more than three times as much (Raafront.jpg Used on 185,058 pages)
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org