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(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 21:08, Risker
<risker.wp(a)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:MostLinkedFiles
Even 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org