Peter, all of these would be useful . The most useful of all would be a
list of those that have been deleted as drafts that were not improved for 6
months--I havre a partial list, but there is no easy way of screening it. A
spreadsheet with links to the deleted versions and to the google scholar
and worldcat records would be an enormous help--I became an admin 12 years
ago specifically to rescue deleted articles, but there is no systematic way
of finding them.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:33 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
David,
Would your work be influenced by an analysis of the academic biographies
which are most searched for that are not on Wikipedia yet? (assuming that
such an targeted analysis was available)
Cheers,
Peter
PS. An analysis that included a check of whether the topic was likely to
be notable and a listing of possible sources would also save a lot of
wasted effort. Also a check against articles that have been deleted for
good reasons, and articles in other languages with a reasonable accessible
reference list.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of David Goodman
Sent: 12 March 2019 07:15
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
"with popular topics cannibalizing resources."
What resources can be cannibalized? The limiting resource in WP is
interested people writing, improving, and validating articles. People
choose their own topics. This is different from an organization where
staff can be directed to work on what the management think is important.
I, for example, almost totally avoid most aspects of what is popular
culture--I am neither competent nor interested. ) The topics I work on are
those that interest me, mainly academic biographies. I'm sure most people
do not think them important. We're volunteers, and must tolerate each
others interests.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:06 PM John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We should be using a grid for what people are
reading about, instead
of using countries. That will give a better representation of large
countries vs small countries. It will also better reflect local ethnic
groups.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:53 PM Amir E. Aharoni
<amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
בתאריך יום א׳, 10 במרץ 2019 ב-23:27 מאת Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but
really
> > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people
are
>
actually looking for and do not find.. Why can we not promote what
proves
> to be of interest [1] ?
>
Actually, there was some work done around it. Here are some examples:
1. The Discovery (Search) team in the Foundation researched searches in
Wikimedia sites' search box that yielded zero results. This was done in
2016 or so, led by Dan Garry as the product manager, and this lead to
some
improvements in the functionality of Wikimedia
sites' internal search
engine, although I don't remember what they were exactly.
2. Google's Project Tiger provided lists of articles for which people
often
> search in the Google search engine in India, and about which there are
no
articles
in Wikipedias in languages of India. See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Supporting_Indian_Language_Wikipedias_Progr…
3. Last year I made a list of articles that people search for in their
language using the interlanguage links search box and cannot find. You
can
see a sample here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amire80/WEIRD/2018-04-09%E2%80%932018-04…
. I plan
to make this list nicer-looking and auto-updating some time
soon.
>
> 4. The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find
articles
> that are missing in some wikis:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
5. This is just an idea, but it's written down, which is a bit better
than
> nothing: Show the most popular articles by country in the PageViews
tool,
rather
than just by language. It's documented at
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207171 . The rationale for this is
that
> the most popular English Wikipedia articles in the U.S., Nigeria,
India,
the
Philippines, and South Africa are significantly different. The
English
> Wikipedia is the most popular one in all these countries, but whereas
it
is
> sensible that it's popular in the U.S., it's a bit depressing that it's
> also the most popular in the other four countries, even though
languages
> other than English are spoken there. The
reason for this situation is,
of
course,
that there is little content in the Wikipedias in the languages
of
> these countries, and knowing what the most popular articles are can
help
people
who write in these languages choose how to write that will be
useful, and will hopefully raise the popularity of Wikipedias in these
languages. The same is true for the most popular Russian Wikipedia
articles
> in Kyrgyzstan and Moldova, the most popular French Wikipedia articles
in
Benin and
Mali, etc. This is only an idea, but maybe it will be
implemented
some day.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
David Goodman
DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: