Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is your chance to indicate interest at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or want that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice our writing skills for our own benefit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three sports, some TV series and three or four music topics. These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war", "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late XX century".
The way we self-identify as a project deeply affects our results: promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to diversity and quality.
Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which will gain a complete influence over us.
To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
Vito
Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or want that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice our writing skills for our own benefit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, You will not see me write about subjects I do not care about. So the notion that anyone writing about subjects you care about is a fallacy. It takes horses for courses, you will write about what you care about and so will I. Others may look into what is missing and find that their subject matter expertise is called for.
When you state that Mr Trump does not know about Indian-Pakistan conflicts, does he know that a Nigerian governor outspends presidents of neighbouring countries.. There are elections for Nigerian governors...
When Mr Trump does not know, and we do not either, we EXACTLY find a spike in a subject people are looking for.. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 10:07, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three sports, some TV series and three or four music topics. These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war", "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late XX century".
The way we self-identify as a project deeply affects our results: promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to diversity and quality.
Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which will gain a complete influence over us.
To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
Vito
Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or want that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what
they
want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see
what
they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice our writing skills for our own benefit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up.
Since
then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no
action
is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I know people in many fields with great technical expertise. people who published articles on Science and Nature basically, and in the end I think they are probably qualified to have an idea of what a good encyclopedia should be. The point is that these people open wiki for topics far away from their area, most of the time they look also for "pop" topics. Finding pop culture is what makes them stay and grow interest as much as everything else. It's when they find a deleted ye useful page of something of interest for some internal reason they think wikipedia it's not worth spending time on.
Based on that experience, in all the discussions when people who claim that this focus on such pop information lower our image or damage our workflow, I always question where these opinions come from and if they are peer-reviewed. I am a scientist, I look at data. it has been years people are claiming the "popmaggedon" of wikipedia is soon, and in the meantime its overall quality on very specific topic is still increasing.
A balanced encyclopedia comes from trying to fill the gaps, all information are useful in that direction. As long as someone else is studying missing links, pages existing in other languages, encouraging what editors want and so on, your idea is just part of patchwork. I cannot peer-review such statement, but at least i can tell you it is said by someone who never edited a "pop" article in all his wikipedia life and manage projects of outreach in organic chemistry or biophysics, to name the last ones. So I hope that it gives a hint that is probably fine. Go on and explore.
Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 10:08:23 CET, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com ha scritto:
That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three sports, some TV series and three or four music topics. These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war", "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late XX century".
The way we self-identify as a project deeply affects our results: promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to diversity and quality.
Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which will gain a complete influence over us.
To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
Vito
Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or want that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice our writing skills for our own benefit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We edit what we choose to edit. Usually the is things we are interested in and know something about. 2 billion people can go search for something I have no interest in and it will not move me to edit that topic. However, if a fairly substantial number of people look for something I am interested in and it is not covered, I may well spend some time improving coverage of the missing material, assuming I can find reliable sources. I don't think I am unique in this attitude, so I predict that getting good feedback on what is missing will inspire the people who would edit those subjects anyway, to improve them. It is very interesting and useful to me to know what readers are missing from my special interest areas and a complete waste of my time nd everyone else's to flood me with information on what people don’t find on topics I have no interest in editing. I will go to the trouble of trying to add information on a topic if even one person clearly and politely asks for it on a talk page. Also if someone does not understand what is written I will try to clarify, as that also improves the encyclopaedia. Clear, well targeted feedback is good, floods of garbage is not. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 1:53 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
I know people in many fields with great technical expertise. people who published articles on Science and Nature basically, and in the end I think they are probably qualified to have an idea of what a good encyclopedia should be. The point is that these people open wiki for topics far away from their area, most of the time they look also for "pop" topics. Finding pop culture is what makes them stay and grow interest as much as everything else. It's when they find a deleted ye useful page of something of interest for some internal reason they think wikipedia it's not worth spending time on.
Based on that experience, in all the discussions when people who claim that this focus on such pop information lower our image or damage our workflow, I always question where these opinions come from and if they are peer-reviewed. I am a scientist, I look at data. it has been years people are claiming the "popmaggedon" of wikipedia is soon, and in the meantime its overall quality on very specific topic is still increasing.
A balanced encyclopedia comes from trying to fill the gaps, all information are useful in that direction. As long as someone else is studying missing links, pages existing in other languages, encouraging what editors want and so on, your idea is just part of patchwork. I cannot peer-review such statement, but at least i can tell you it is said by someone who never edited a "pop" article in all his wikipedia life and manage projects of outreach in organic chemistry or biophysics, to name the last ones. So I hope that it gives a hint that is probably fine. Go on and explore.
Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 10:08:23 CET, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com ha scritto:
That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three sports, some TV series and three or four music topics. These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war", "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late XX century".
The way we self-identify as a project deeply affects our results: promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to diversity and quality.
Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which will gain a complete influence over us.
To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
Vito
Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or want that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice our writing skills for our own benefit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree, we should not be deleting useful articles.
https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
On Mar 11, 2019, at 4:52 AM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
I know people in many fields with great technical expertise. people who published articles on Science and Nature basically, and in the end I think they are probably qualified to have an idea of what a good encyclopedia should be. The point is that these people open wiki for topics far away from their area, most of the time they look also for "pop" topics. Finding pop culture is what makes them stay and grow interest as much as everything else. It's when they find a deleted ye useful page of something of interest for some internal reason they think wikipedia it's not worth spending time on.
Based on that experience, in all the discussions when people who claim that this focus on such pop information lower our image or damage our workflow, I always question where these opinions come from and if they are peer-reviewed. I am a scientist, I look at data. it has been years people are claiming the "popmaggedon" of wikipedia is soon, and in the meantime its overall quality on very specific topic is still increasing.
A balanced encyclopedia comes from trying to fill the gaps, all information are useful in that direction. As long as someone else is studying missing links, pages existing in other languages, encouraging what editors want and so on, your idea is just part of patchwork. I cannot peer-review such statement, but at least i can tell you it is said by someone who never edited a "pop" article in all his wikipedia life and manage projects of outreach in organic chemistry or biophysics, to name the last ones. So I hope that it gives a hint that is probably fine. Go on and explore.
Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 10:08:23 CET, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com ha scritto:
That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three sports, some TV series and three or four music topics. These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war", "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late XX century".
The way we self-identify as a project deeply affects our results: promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to diversity and quality.
Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which will gain a complete influence over us.
To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
Vito
Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or want that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice our writing skills for our own benefit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Vito, I do not agree with you, but that may be because we edit differently. I write about what I am interested in, and know enough about to be reasonably efficient. There is enough of it to keep me busy indefinitely. I read the topics that interest me and I don't know enough about to write. I copyedit anywhere I see a need while I am reading. I fix what I see to be broken if I can. I do not think I am unique, or even unusual. What do you write about? Is it greatly affected by what other people choose to read? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Vi to Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:07 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three sports, some TV series and three or four music topics. These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war", "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late XX century".
The way we self-identify as a project deeply affects our results: promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to diversity and quality.
Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which will gain a complete influence over us.
To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
Vito
Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or want that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice our writing skills for our own benefit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Peter,
I am also writing about what I am (sometimes mildly) interested in, and I am sure there will be enough materials for me to edit until I die, but you would be surprised to learn how many people have no idea on what they could/should edit, and are happy to take suggestions.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:31 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Vito, I do not agree with you, but that may be because we edit differently. I write about what I am interested in, and know enough about to be reasonably efficient. There is enough of it to keep me busy indefinitely. I read the topics that interest me and I don't know enough about to write. I copyedit anywhere I see a need while I am reading. I fix what I see to be broken if I can. I do not think I am unique, or even unusual. What do you write about? Is it greatly affected by what other people choose to read? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Vi to Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:07 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three sports, some TV series and three or four music topics. These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war", "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late XX century".
The way we self-identify as a project deeply affects our results: promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to diversity and quality.
Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which will gain a complete influence over us.
To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
Vito
Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or want that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what
they
want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see
what
they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice our writing skills for our own benefit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up.
Since
then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no
action
is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yaroslav, I would be very interested to know how many, what percentage, and how much they actually contribute in terms of good content. Are there any stats available? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter Sent: 11 March 2019 20:35 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
Peter,
I am also writing about what I am (sometimes mildly) interested in, and I am sure there will be enough materials for me to edit until I die, but you would be surprised to learn how many people have no idea on what they could/should edit, and are happy to take suggestions.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:31 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Vito, I do not agree with you, but that may be because we edit differently. I write about what I am interested in, and know enough about to be reasonably efficient. There is enough of it to keep me busy indefinitely. I read the topics that interest me and I don't know enough about to write. I copyedit anywhere I see a need while I am reading. I fix what I see to be broken if I can. I do not think I am unique, or even unusual. What do you write about? Is it greatly affected by what other people choose to read? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Vi to Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:07 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three sports, some TV series and three or four music topics. These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war", "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late XX century".
The way we self-identify as a project deeply affects our results: promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to diversity and quality.
Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which will gain a complete influence over us.
To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
Vito
Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or want that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what
they
want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see
what
they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice our writing skills for our own benefit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up.
Since
then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no
action
is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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
Hoi, What is it that scares youi? When you want to write about the subject that you care about do. If it is popular good. That is all.
What scares me is that people define what others want to / need to know. What is the propblem with providing what people are looking for? In the big Wikipedias almost everything is there including pokemon, soccer and ice hockey... Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 23:58, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
Vito
Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
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] ? Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Il giorno mar 12 mar 2019 alle ore 06:16 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
"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 was exactly making reference to this. Editors' interests are hard to change and, actually, it wouldn't be auspicable to do it.
The only resources which can be moved are those related to outreaching, editathons, various kinds of online and offline projects.
Keeping it short I disagree with choosing topics for editathons and similar initiatives basing on topic popularity since this will be in contrast with any commitment to diversity, even more it will push a wrong model of encyclopedia.
When you state that Mr Trump does not know about Indian-Pakistan conflicts,
does he know that a Nigerian governor outspends presidents of neighbouring countries.. There are elections for Nigerian governors...
I didn't wrote this actually, inaccurate quoting of others' opinions can poison any discussion. Trying to rephrase, I wrote it would be better to cover things which suits more the mission of an encyclopedia and which get less attention by media, as Indian-Paki conflicts background, rather than mr. Trump's covfefes.
What is the propblem with providing what people are looking for?
I often look for bus schedule 😉
Vito
Hi Vito,
I believe it depends on the way it is done. An edithaton on rappers & pop stars with high-school students could be a great way to get them into the project in a fun way. Then as they keep developing and diversifying their interests, as generally happens with growing kids, they have a never ending source of inspiration at Wikipedia, even to use as a train ground for school/university.
I would like to note that, contrary to what seems to be happening in other projects, and possibly related with some kind of Internet boom in Brazil, Angola and other Portuguese-speaking countries, the Wikipedia in Portuguese shows (at least empirically) a very high proportion of kids, mostly teens, but some as young as 10 or 11, mostly editing in animation series & computer games initially, and then progressing into other fields as they grow. I've been watching this for 10 years already. A significant number of those little kids that were there in 2009 are now sysops and regular editors on Wikipedia, and part of the regular community. In a number of cases I know Wikipedia was decisive to develop their skills at school, sometimes even in their lives in general. It is a good thing. And it all started with pokemons, Naruto, Saint Seiya and all the stuff that is often derided as mostly useless in an encyclopedia, but that worked as a learning school for that young generation, helping them learning how to edit Wikipedia in a fun way.
I would not go as far as saying we should be doing edithatons about Naruto and Pokemons, but I do believe we should be helping those kids editing those articles, instead of chasing them away as "useless newbies only interested in pop stuff" as often happens. They are the future generations of Wikipedians.
Best, Paulo - DarwIn Wikimedia Portugal
Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 12/03/2019 à(s) 10:22:
Il giorno mar 12 mar 2019 alle ore 06:16 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
"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 was exactly making reference to this. Editors' interests are hard to change and, actually, it wouldn't be auspicable to do it.
The only resources which can be moved are those related to outreaching, editathons, various kinds of online and offline projects.
Keeping it short I disagree with choosing topics for editathons and similar initiatives basing on topic popularity since this will be in contrast with any commitment to diversity, even more it will push a wrong model of encyclopedia.
When you state that Mr Trump does not know about Indian-Pakistan conflicts,
does he know that a Nigerian governor outspends presidents of
neighbouring
countries.. There are elections for Nigerian governors...
I didn't wrote this actually, inaccurate quoting of others' opinions can poison any discussion. Trying to rephrase, I wrote it would be better to cover things which suits more the mission of an encyclopedia and which get less attention by media, as Indian-Paki conflicts background, rather than mr. Trump's covfefes.
What is the propblem with providing what people are looking for?
I often look for bus schedule 😉
Vito _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I, for one, would indeed go so far as to say we should be doing editatons about Naruto and Pokemon.
On Mar 12, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
I would not go as far as saying we should be doing edithatons about Naruto and Pokemons,
We certainly could do editatons about Naruto and Pokemon and it would actually be quite useful. As Paulo said, a well written "pop" page has a good influence. People can understand easily how a complex and multifaceted article with appropriate navboxes, infoboxed, is structured for a trivial topic, and think how they can help for other topics. I repeat the concept: I have friends who work at the top of their fields, some of them have also their own wikipedia article (I am not telling which one because of respect of their privacy) and they leave edits on complex topic sometimes but it's their everyday job so they are bored to do even on wiki in their free time. Still, they do a little bit and they learned how to do it visiting other pages about the most trivial topics you can imagine. They showed me their first edits as IPs sometimes and they are as diverse as you can imagine. Obscure dialects, silly TV series, things like that.
Also, since we are talking about Pokemon....I can show something directly like Paulo did.This is the history of the article Cronologia delle modifiche di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia Ulva Lactuca. HisuiSama and Adriana Hariuc who added more text on January the 20th are the same students who are comparing the very same morning a plant at the botanical garden to a Pokemon in this gallery: https://twitter.com/Alexmar983/status/1087119134058516480 So, Go Pokemon... I know about the "pokemon test" but in the end I actually wish we had more Pokemon pages, it would probably be fine. Alex
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Cronologia delle modifiche di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia
|
|
|
Il giovedì 14 marzo 2019, 00:14:57 CET, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com ha scritto:
I, for one, would indeed go so far as to say we should be doing editatons about Naruto and Pokemon.
On Mar 12, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
I would not go as far as saying we should be doing edithatons about Naruto and Pokemons,
_______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I also don't see why it would be such a problem to have more articles about Pokemon.
Volunteer effort is certainly not zero sum.
Contributing to one area doesn't necessarily mean contributing less to another.
Speaking from personal experience now, one of my earliest Wikipedia edits was about Pokemon.
It was reverted.
Luckily, I was not discouraged, but I know that many people would be, and that is a real problem.
I think there's a bias on Wikipedia when weighing the pros and cons of policy, because it's easy to overlook the absence of something that never was there to begin with.
On Mar 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
We certainly could do editatons about Naruto and Pokemon and it would actually be quite useful. As Paulo said, a well written "pop" page has a good influence. People can understand easily how a complex and multifaceted article with appropriate navboxes, infoboxed, is structured for a trivial topic, and think how they can help for other topics. I repeat the concept: I have friends who work at the top of their fields, some of them have also their own wikipedia article (I am not telling which one because of respect of their privacy) and they leave edits on complex topic sometimes but it's their everyday job so they are bored to do even on wiki in their free time. Still, they do a little bit and they learned how to do it visiting other pages about the most trivial topics you can imagine. They showed me their first edits as IPs sometimes and they are as diverse as you can imagine. Obscure dialects, silly TV series, things like that.
Also, since we are talking about Pokemon....I can show something directly like Paulo did.This is the history of the article Cronologia delle modifiche di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia Ulva Lactuca. HisuiSama and Adriana Hariuc who added more text on January the 20th are the same students who are comparing the very same morning a plant at the botanical garden to a Pokemon in this gallery: https://twitter.com/Alexmar983/status/1087119134058516480 So, Go Pokemon... I know about the "pokemon test" but in the end I actually wish we had more Pokemon pages, it would probably be fine. Alex
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Cronologia delle modifiche di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia
|
|
|
Il giovedì 14 marzo 2019, 00:14:57 CET, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com ha scritto:
I, for one, would indeed go so far as to say we should be doing editatons about Naruto and Pokemon.
On Mar 12, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
I would not go as far as saying we should be doing edithatons about Naruto and Pokemons,
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think, Benjamin, that sometimes some users don't get the experience of other people. I met so many smart men and women with very trivial hobbies that the idea of such separation sounds simply wrong or odd. I have never edited on "pop" topic on purpose, I have no interest for cartoons or TV series, mostly "serious" stuff, still I don't see the issue here.
Maybe on some local communities this will remain accepted as general truth, that "opposing" focus or research on "pop" topics is good for the image or the balance of energies of the Wikimedia projects but when you move on the global scale I don't think it holds very well.
It sounds simple to say so, but based on my experience I don't think it's actually correct. Again, I am willing to read any peer-reviewed publication where something related to the opposite is stated, but so far if these are just opinions, than I stick to my perception, and I remain generally favorable toward this sort of interest. Il giovedì 14 marzo 2019, 01:08:57 CET, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com ha scritto:
I also don't see why it would be such a problem to have more articles about Pokemon.
Volunteer effort is certainly not zero sum.
Contributing to one area doesn't necessarily mean contributing less to another.
Speaking from personal experience now, one of my earliest Wikipedia edits was about Pokemon.
It was reverted.
Luckily, I was not discouraged, but I know that many people would be, and that is a real problem.
I think there's a bias on Wikipedia when weighing the pros and cons of policy, because it's easy to overlook the absence of something that never was there to begin with.
On Mar 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
We certainly could do editatons about Naruto and Pokemon and it would actually be quite useful. As Paulo said, a well written "pop" page has a good influence. People can understand easily how a complex and multifaceted article with appropriate navboxes, infoboxed, is structured for a trivial topic, and think how they can help for other topics. I repeat the concept: I have friends who work at the top of their fields, some of them have also their own wikipedia article (I am not telling which one because of respect of their privacy) and they leave edits on complex topic sometimes but it's their everyday job so they are bored to do even on wiki in their free time. Still, they do a little bit and they learned how to do it visiting other pages about the most trivial topics you can imagine. They showed me their first edits as IPs sometimes and they are as diverse as you can imagine. Obscure dialects, silly TV series, things like that.
Also, since we are talking about Pokemon....I can show something directly like Paulo did.This is the history of the article Cronologia delle modifiche di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia Ulva Lactuca. HisuiSama and Adriana Hariuc who added more text on January the 20th are the same students who are comparing the very same morning a plant at the botanical garden to a Pokemon in this gallery: https://twitter.com/Alexmar983/status/1087119134058516480 So, Go Pokemon... I know about the "pokemon test" but in the end I actually wish we had more Pokemon pages, it would probably be fine. Alex
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Cronologia delle modifiche di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia
|
|
|
Il giovedì 14 marzo 2019, 00:14:57 CET, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com ha scritto:
I, for one, would indeed go so far as to say we should be doing editatons about Naruto and Pokemon.
On Mar 12, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
I would not go as far as saying we should be doing edithatons about Naruto and Pokemons,
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is *only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and not once, but repeatedly.
However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about what *is* in demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to "popular".
While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless, reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering popular topics won't hurt.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Reminding is easy, it's analyzing that it's complex.
I suspect that editors and readers are probably a little bit smarter than generally assumed. It's quite "obvious" that editors understand what is an encyclopedia, after years. When I make an informal survey, statistically the "smarter" students in the class or in the group of people in front of me at an event are those who already edited something or who want to know more or are willing to compile a form to state their opinion or similar.
Plus, every topic is multifaceted somehow, it's the same for the most popular ones. It's strange when long-time editors seem to miss this aspect. There is always a specific disease, an historical event, a place or a person in a family history linked to a most searched topic. You can detect many missing specific things just focusing on a core topic and starting from there. Again, maybe it's worth reminding also how our editors are quite good at doing this, and this type of information is therefore a starting point. In some of this comments, it always look like an end per se.
Seriously, if someone is so superficial to just edit something with no depth because it's on a list, (s)he will just do something equally superficial somewhere else. Clinically, I might state that it's probably a good thing if this occur in an area with huge focus, it actually lowers the possible long-term disfunctionalities induced by a rigid approach, something that it's more subtle to detect in less supervised areas.
in any case, these lists can change a lot from area to area so it is not even driven by the "mass", if you give a country in South America or Asia the same focus on a western country you end up with very unusual guideline. it's nice to know that you expertise in an area even if less taken into account in the average community around you, it's useful in a different part of the word.
Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 13:32:12 CET, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il ha scritto:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is *only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and not once, but repeatedly.
However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about what *is* in demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to "popular".
While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless, reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering popular topics won't hurt.
-- 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, The point is EXACTLY that this list will be different per language. What there is, what is needed differs as a consequence. What specific Wikipedias covers is as different.
There are multiple objectives to be gained:
- as we gain more articles, we will gain a bigger presence for a Wikipedia in Google - a bigger presence will give us more eye balls. - more people who edit a Wikipedia means that any and all subjects of their choosing become better covered
When we choose for an approach like this, it is very much in the true Wiki spirit. When the argument is about "supervision", the question is how that would work. In my opinion, you are likely not to know the other language and Google translate is unlikely to function for all the 280+ languages.
The point of this approach is very much that there is no solution for all of Wikipedia.. It is weird to suggest that would work in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 14:08, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Reminding is easy, it's analyzing that it's complex.
I suspect that editors and readers are probably a little bit smarter than generally assumed. It's quite "obvious" that editors understand what is an encyclopedia, after years. When I make an informal survey, statistically the "smarter" students in the class or in the group of people in front of me at an event are those who already edited something or who want to know more or are willing to compile a form to state their opinion or similar.
Plus, every topic is multifaceted somehow, it's the same for the most popular ones. It's strange when long-time editors seem to miss this aspect. There is always a specific disease, an historical event, a place or a person in a family history linked to a most searched topic. You can detect many missing specific things just focusing on a core topic and starting from there. Again, maybe it's worth reminding also how our editors are quite good at doing this, and this type of information is therefore a starting point. In some of this comments, it always look like an end per se.
Seriously, if someone is so superficial to just edit something with no depth because it's on a list, (s)he will just do something equally superficial somewhere else. Clinically, I might state that it's probably a good thing if this occur in an area with huge focus, it actually lowers the possible long-term disfunctionalities induced by a rigid approach, something that it's more subtle to detect in less supervised areas.
in any case, these lists can change a lot from area to area so it is not even driven by the "mass", if you give a country in South America or Asia the same focus on a western country you end up with very unusual guideline. it's nice to know that you expertise in an area even if less taken into account in the average community around you, it's useful in a different part of the word.
Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 13:32:12 CET, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is *only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and not once, but repeatedly.
However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about what *is* in demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to "popular".
While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless, reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering popular topics won't hurt.
-- 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
I absolutely agree with the idea of finding some way to know what is more popular / wanted by readers. And if we identify with it/want to invest some time in it / whatever, then we can have a good criteria to follow about what to create first, or invest more in.
I have created myself a number of high-demand pop articles with which I do not identify at all, as k-pop start Suga - https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suga and late rapper Lil Peep https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lil_Peep , because I understood that a lot of people was searching information about them, and it would be a win-win for everyone if they would find reliable information in Wikipedia, and possibly act as an anchor for those readers to better now and join our projects.
I have also done exactly the same with one of the most vandalized and used in vandalism terms in Portuguese, an horrible swearing word, turning that not only into an encyclopedic article, but into a featured article: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caralho . A lot of people was absolutely shocked by the amount of time apparently "lost" into collecting such stuff and building it into a proper article, but I see that as an investment: Turning something apparently hideous into a magnet for History, Medieval Literature and Folk Culture. The result is that, as you can see, the article is not even protected. I believe that kids and vandals find it so educative (that is: boring) they simply turn away. Or they keep reading, and actually learn something useful. :)
Other experiments I've been doing is writing, following and developing news-like articles about current events, with high popular demand ATM, such as shipwrecks, earthquakes and fires, and monitor their visibility and the way they drive new people into the projects.
Finally, I would like to point the interesting case of encyclopedic article on Brazilian pastry papo-de-anjo - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papo-de-anjo , which was created by encyclopedic academic "most highly cited computer scientist in Brazil" Jorge Stolfi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi
Why is Stolfi editing about cakes and Brazilian pastry instead of computer science? Because he feels like it. Would you go to Solfi and say he should be writing about computer science, instead of pastry, he would probably leave and you end up with no computer science and no pastry. Why sometimes I create pop articles instead of concentrating in more "encyclopedic" stuff? Because this is supposed to be fun, and also a way to learn new stuff. I do not identify at all with k-pop and rappers, but I found it funny to write about them, and a way to learn about something that is absolutely exotic to me. And still write a lot about Literature, History and Science. But when people come to me saying that I'm loosing my time writing about those pop subjects, and that I should write about this and that, what I answer is: If you believe someone should write about that, then YOU should write, not came asking others to do your stuff.
Please, bring on that popularity study, I'm certainly very interested in it.
Best, Paulo - DarwIn Wikimedia Portugal
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 12/03/2019 à(s) 08:26:
Hoi, The point is EXACTLY that this list will be different per language. What there is, what is needed differs as a consequence. What specific Wikipedias covers is as different.
There are multiple objectives to be gained:
- as we gain more articles, we will gain a bigger presence for a
Wikipedia in Google
- a bigger presence will give us more eye balls.
- more people who edit a Wikipedia means that any and all subjects of
their choosing become better covered
When we choose for an approach like this, it is very much in the true Wiki spirit. When the argument is about "supervision", the question is how that would work. In my opinion, you are likely not to know the other language and Google translate is unlikely to function for all the 280+ languages.
The point of this approach is very much that there is no solution for all of Wikipedia.. It is weird to suggest that would work in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 14:08, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Reminding is easy, it's analyzing that it's complex.
I suspect that editors and readers are probably a little bit smarter than generally assumed. It's quite "obvious" that editors understand what is
an
encyclopedia, after years. When I make an informal survey, statistically the "smarter" students in the class or in the group of people in front of me at an event are those who already edited something or who want to know more or are willing to compile a form to state their opinion or similar.
Plus, every topic is multifaceted somehow, it's the same for the most popular ones. It's strange when long-time editors seem to miss this
aspect.
There is always a specific disease, an historical event, a place or a person in a family history linked to a most searched topic. You can
detect
many missing specific things just focusing on a core topic and starting from there. Again, maybe it's worth reminding also how our editors are quite good at doing this, and this type of information is therefore a starting point. In some of this comments, it always look like an end per se.
Seriously, if someone is so superficial to just edit something with no depth because it's on a list, (s)he will just do something equally superficial somewhere else. Clinically, I might state that it's probably
a
good thing if this occur in an area with huge focus, it actually lowers
the
possible long-term disfunctionalities induced by a rigid approach, something that it's more subtle to detect in less supervised areas.
in any case, these lists can change a lot from area to area so it is not even driven by the "mass", if you give a country in South America or Asia the same focus on a western country you end up with very unusual
guideline.
it's nice to know that you expertise in an area even if less taken into account in the average community around you, it's useful in a different part of the word.
Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 13:32:12 CET, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is *only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and not once, but repeatedly.
However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about what *is* in demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to "popular".
While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless, reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering popular topics won't hurt.
-- 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We can consider this an opportunity, e.g. popular media often touches on diverse cultural and political themes, and international sports tournaments give people a reason to learn about different countries. If people find our project this way then so be it, we can just try and make sure those articles great starting points for further exploration https://xkcd.com/214/.
Ed
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is *only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and not once, but repeatedly.
However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about what *is* in demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to "popular".
While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless, reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering popular topics won't hurt.
-- 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all,
This is a very interesting discussion. I'm going to fork this thread in the next 2 hours (unless one of you do this in the meantime) for us to continue the conversation around using search as a signal for improving Wikipedia in there. It would be best, for current and future readability, to keep the focus of the current thread on the original topic.
Thanks, Leila
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 7:51 AM Edward Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
We can consider this an opportunity, e.g. popular media often touches on diverse cultural and political themes, and international sports tournaments give people a reason to learn about different countries. If people find our project this way then so be it, we can just try and make sure those articles great starting points for further exploration https://xkcd.com/214/.
Ed
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is *only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and not once, but repeatedly.
However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about what *is* in demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to "popular".
While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless, reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering popular topics won't hurt.
-- 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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_Progra...
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
Bamyers99's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POPULARLOWQUALITY weekly list linked from the Community Portal "Help out" section addresses the issue directly, thanks to ORES. It would be great if that were adopted by the Foundation for Wikipedias other than English.
Also, the links from the numbers on WP:BACKLOG which used to sort the backlog categories by pageviews are broken again. I thought Dispenser's categorder got moved to Toolforge years ago, but apparently it's no longer maintained?
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:53 AM Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@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:
- 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.
- 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_Progra...
- 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.
- The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find articles
that are missing in some wikis: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
- 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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@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:
- 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.
- 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_Progra...
- 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.
- The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find articles
that are missing in some wikis: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
- 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
"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@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@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:
- 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.
- 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_Progra...
- 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.
- The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find articles
that are missing in some wikis: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
- 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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@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@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:
- 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.
- 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_Progra...
- 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.
- The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find articles
that are missing in some wikis: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
- 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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@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@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@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:
- 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.
- 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_Progra...
- 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.
- The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find
articles
that are missing in some wikis:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
- 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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
An update on this thread:
* We have launched the survey on 2019-06-26 in 15 languages and we intend to stop the surveys 7 days after launch time. The current flow of responses is as expected.
* The participating languages are: ar, de, en (sampling from all countries), en (sampling from countries in Africa), es, fa, fr (sampling from all countries), fr (sampling from countries in Africa), he, hu, no, ro, ru, uk, zh. (A big thank you to the volunteers in these language communities who worked with us to make the translations and announcements on village pumps happen.)
* Please watch https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Beh... if you're interested to receive updates about the research as we go through the analysis. (Please expect, roughly, a monthly update frequency. If we can do more frequently, we will.)
* If you want the survey to run in your language community, there is a chance that we run the same survey in a few weeks time in a few of more languages. You can express your interest by adding a line item as the last row of the table in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade... . Priority is given to languages who have signed up prior to this announcement. We can't guarantee that we can run these extra surveys.
And one logistical announcement: As some of you know, Isaac Johnson from the Research team is working heavily on this stage of the research (demographics+motivation/needs). As a result, some or all of the future announcements about this stage of the research may come from him instead of me. :)
Best, Leila
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:07 PM David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@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@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:
- 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.
- 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_Progra...
- 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.
- The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find
articles
that are missing in some wikis:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
- 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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
A few updates from the last few months:
* The surveys successfully ran for one week. We were able to gather 63,000 responses across the 13 languages. I presented preliminary results about this at Wikimania in August and have now added the high-level results to Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Beh...
* More data will be added to the results there as we can validate it. Specifically, I am hoping to publish country-specific results where we have sufficient responses as well as data regarding the cross-tabulation of various questions from the survey and aspects of reader sessions.
* We are currently running a longer survey with lower sampling rates to test if we are able to reach less-frequent readers of Wikipedia and whether this changes any of our results. When we have analyzed this information, we will update the results to indicate whether anything changes.
Best, Isaac
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:17 AM Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
An update on this thread:
- We have launched the survey on 2019-06-26 in 15 languages and we
intend to stop the surveys 7 days after launch time. The current flow of responses is as expected.
- The participating languages are: ar, de, en (sampling from all
countries), en (sampling from countries in Africa), es, fa, fr (sampling from all countries), fr (sampling from countries in Africa), he, hu, no, ro, ru, uk, zh. (A big thank you to the volunteers in these language communities who worked with us to make the translations and announcements on village pumps happen.)
- Please watch
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Beh... if you're interested to receive updates about the research as we go through the analysis. (Please expect, roughly, a monthly update frequency. If we can do more frequently, we will.)
- If you want the survey to run in your language community, there is a
chance that we run the same survey in a few weeks time in a few of more languages. You can express your interest by adding a line item as the last row of the table in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade... . Priority is given to languages who have signed up prior to this announcement. We can't guarantee that we can run these extra surveys.
And one logistical announcement: As some of you know, Isaac Johnson from the Research team is working heavily on this stage of the research (demographics+motivation/needs). As a result, some or all of the future announcements about this stage of the research may come from him instead of me. :)
Best, Leila
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:07 PM David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@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@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:
- 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.
- 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_Progra...
- 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.
- The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find
articles
that are missing in some wikis:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
- 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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Gerard,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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..
Please open a Phabricator task for this request at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . Please add Research as a tag and add me as one of the subscribers. I'd like to work with you on a concrete proposal. A few items to consider as you're expanding the description of the task:
* We won't be able to release raw search queries as they come to Wikimedia servers. That is for privacy reasons.
* You also likely don't need raw search queries. If you can be specific about what you want to have access to, as much as possible, that can help us get started with scoping the problem. I'm looking for something along these lines: "I want to be able to see a monthly list of top n search terms in language x that result in 0 search results or results where the user does not click on any of the search results offered." The more specific, the better. If you are in doubt, put some description and we can iterate on it.
Best, Leila p.s. The goal of this exercise is to have an open question ready (with all the details one needs to know) for the next time we will have a volunteer researcher to work with us.
Hoi, I have written another blogpost [1] where I express a different approach to our data. It achieves two things
- an understanding what subjects not articles are most popular in Wikipedia - a tool that identifies what subjects we are looking for as missing in any Wikipedia
the tool is based on existing functionality, it just needs additional functionality to support people in adding new items and statements for a Wikidata item that represents the missing subject. I will write another blogpost where I expand on opportunities to expand search to share in the sum of all knowledge and not on what only one Wikipedia has to offer. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/sharing-in-sum-of-all-knowledge...
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 00:12, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gerard,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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..
Please open a Phabricator task for this request at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . Please add Research as a tag and add me as one of the subscribers. I'd like to work with you on a concrete proposal. A few items to consider as you're expanding the description of the task:
- We won't be able to release raw search queries as they come to
Wikimedia servers. That is for privacy reasons.
- You also likely don't need raw search queries. If you can be
specific about what you want to have access to, as much as possible, that can help us get started with scoping the problem. I'm looking for something along these lines: "I want to be able to see a monthly list of top n search terms in language x that result in 0 search results or results where the user does not click on any of the search results offered." The more specific, the better. If you are in doubt, put some description and we can iterate on it.
Best, Leila p.s. The goal of this exercise is to have an open question ready (with all the details one needs to know) for the next time we will have a volunteer researcher to work with us.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The topic of zero-result search queries comes up from time to time. The logic is generally this: if we can see the top queries that got no results, then we can figure out what users are looking for but not finding, and add it to the encyclopedia. Wonderful user-centred thinking, and it sounds great! The problem is, sadly, the data doesn't help us achieve this at all.
The sheer volume of requests means that a lot of the top zero-results queries are junk. Trey Jones, an engineer on the Search Platform Team, wrote a comprehensive analysis https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:TJones_(WMF)/Notes/Survey_of_Zero-Results_Queries a few years ago of the top zero-result queries based on an analysis of a 500,000 multi-lingual sample. It was quite enlightening in some senses—we found out a lot about the things that people are doing with the search system, found some bugs in other products, and so on—but it didn't actually help us understand what people were looking for and not finding.
Dan
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 23:12, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gerard,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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..
Please open a Phabricator task for this request at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . Please add Research as a tag and add me as one of the subscribers. I'd like to work with you on a concrete proposal. A few items to consider as you're expanding the description of the task:
- We won't be able to release raw search queries as they come to
Wikimedia servers. That is for privacy reasons.
- You also likely don't need raw search queries. If you can be
specific about what you want to have access to, as much as possible, that can help us get started with scoping the problem. I'm looking for something along these lines: "I want to be able to see a monthly list of top n search terms in language x that result in 0 search results or results where the user does not click on any of the search results offered." The more specific, the better. If you are in doubt, put some description and we can iterate on it.
Best, Leila p.s. The goal of this exercise is to have an open question ready (with all the details one needs to know) for the next time we will have a volunteer researcher to work with us.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey folks,
Trey authored a Wikimedia blog post on this as well: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/12/12/failed-queries-fear-of-missing-out/
--Ed
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) djgwiki@gmail.com wrote:
The topic of zero-result search queries comes up from time to time. The logic is generally this: if we can see the top queries that got no results, then we can figure out what users are looking for but not finding, and add it to the encyclopedia. Wonderful user-centred thinking, and it sounds great! The problem is, sadly, the data doesn't help us achieve this at all.
The sheer volume of requests means that a lot of the top zero-results queries are junk. Trey Jones, an engineer on the Search Platform Team, wrote a comprehensive analysis < https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:TJones_(WMF)/Notes/Survey_of_Zero-Result...
a few years ago of the top zero-result queries based on an analysis of a 500,000 multi-lingual sample. It was quite enlightening in some senses—we found out a lot about the things that people are doing with the search system, found some bugs in other products, and so on—but it didn't actually help us understand what people were looking for and not finding.
Dan
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 23:12, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gerard,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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..
Please open a Phabricator task for this request at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . Please add Research as a tag and add me as one of the subscribers. I'd like to work with you on a concrete proposal. A few items to consider as you're expanding the description of the task:
- We won't be able to release raw search queries as they come to
Wikimedia servers. That is for privacy reasons.
- You also likely don't need raw search queries. If you can be
specific about what you want to have access to, as much as possible, that can help us get started with scoping the problem. I'm looking for something along these lines: "I want to be able to see a monthly list of top n search terms in language x that result in 0 search results or results where the user does not click on any of the search results offered." The more specific, the better. If you are in doubt, put some description and we can iterate on it.
Best, Leila p.s. The goal of this exercise is to have an open question ready (with all the details one needs to know) for the next time we will have a volunteer researcher to work with us.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, I read the blogpost and it utterly misses the point. The point is that this is NOT about English Wikipedia, for them another approach will work better. At the same time when you read my blogpost, you will find that the elephant in the room is that we consider articles to be synonymous with subjects. They are not. We do not have an aggregated number of most popular subjects, subjects on all Wikipedias. When we did, we would know what the world reads and not what is served by a single Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia.
The biggest benefit is that it will provide us with a list with less of an Anglo-American bias. One subset of this list will be what the world reads and is not available on English. Subjects that feature high in the world indicate a particular kind of notability. It will be really interesting to see how these subjects will be appreciated by the public and the "wiki gnomes". Finding authors can be done in a similar way as the "gender bias" approach.
Another thing where the blogpost misses the point is that is concentrates on English Wikipedia. The only line left for the small Wikipedias is that the gem-to-dung ratio may differ. As English has never been my objective of this approach, it disqualifies the results. By posting this blogpost, you make it plain you have not read or understood what it is that I propose in my blogpost [1].
First I want the search extension by Magnus active on every Wikipedia. This will expose all subjects known to us as a result, not just the articles on a Wikipedia. It is save to log such an interest. All we want is a timestamp, the language and the Qid. This is exactly what we do for articlesl so there is no privacy issue here. I also want to invite people to add labels and false friends in their language.
For any Wikipedia, the approach what is the most read article that you do not have, is a valid approach to propose the writing of a new article. Some will use this list, most will not and again, the English Wikignomes do not know the language elsewhere.
We know what articles are receiving what traffic. It is just a data question for us to know what new articles received what traffic in a full month. Exposing this, highlighting their success is a powerful way to provide recognition.
In conclusion, there is a very strong bias for English Wikipedia in the attention given to the exclusion of others. English is less than fifty percent of our traffic. It gets more than eighty percent of attention. As you read in the comments of your blogpost, I am happy to collaborate but so far it has not fit your agenda. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/sharing-in-sum-of-all-knowledge...
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 18:28, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
Trey authored a Wikimedia blog post on this as well: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/12/12/failed-queries-fear-of-missing-out/
--Ed
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) djgwiki@gmail.com wrote:
The topic of zero-result search queries comes up from time to time. The logic is generally this: if we can see the top queries that got no
results,
then we can figure out what users are looking for but not finding, and
add
it to the encyclopedia. Wonderful user-centred thinking, and it sounds great! The problem is, sadly, the data doesn't help us achieve this at
all.
The sheer volume of requests means that a lot of the top zero-results queries are junk. Trey Jones, an engineer on the Search Platform Team, wrote a comprehensive analysis <
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:TJones_(WMF)/Notes/Survey_of_Zero-Result...
a few years ago of the top zero-result queries based on an analysis of a 500,000 multi-lingual sample. It was quite enlightening in some senses—we found out a lot about the things that people are doing with the search system, found some bugs in other products, and so on—but it didn't
actually
help us understand what people were looking for and not finding.
Dan
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 23:12, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gerard,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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..
Please open a Phabricator task for this request at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . Please add Research as a tag and add me as one of the subscribers. I'd like to work with you on a concrete proposal. A few items to consider as you're expanding the description of the task:
- We won't be able to release raw search queries as they come to
Wikimedia servers. That is for privacy reasons.
- You also likely don't need raw search queries. If you can be
specific about what you want to have access to, as much as possible, that can help us get started with scoping the problem. I'm looking for something along these lines: "I want to be able to see a monthly list of top n search terms in language x that result in 0 search results or results where the user does not click on any of the search results offered." The more specific, the better. If you are in doubt, put some description and we can iterate on it.
Best, Leila p.s. The goal of this exercise is to have an open question ready (with all the details one needs to know) for the next time we will have a volunteer researcher to work with us.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- [image: Wikimedia-logo black.svg] *Ed Erhart* (he/him)
Senior Editorial Associate
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Leila,
I have put my own but the problem we have in Switzerland is connected to the multi-lingualism.
Italian, for instance, which is one big language in WIkipedia, is at the opposite a minority in Switzerland.
Any study is interesting, but if it could be country-based, it would be better.
Kind regards
On 06/03/2019 22:12, Leila Zia wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is your chance to indicate interest at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Ciao Ilario,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Ilario valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Any study is interesting, but if it could be country-based, it would be better.
We agree with you that the country component is quite important. There is some ongoing engineering work to make the feature available in QuickSurvey [1] which is the extension we use. If it gets ready, we will include at least some sampling by country.
Let me give you a couple of reasons why from our perspective sampling by country is key: * Understanding readers from countries such as Nigeria is hard through English Wikipedia as the traffic in enwiki is dominated by other countries. In order to get enough responses from Nigeria, we have to ask many more questions from the rest of the world which is not something we want to do. * Many chapters are organized by geographical regions and learning about the readers in their geography can empower them in new ways. * If we have enough responses from different countries, we can have more accurate debiasing steps. For example, if we have enough data from country x, we can look at the age distribution of respondents and see if that age distribution matches the age distribution from that country based on external databases available. If not, we can try to correct for the differences, or at least be aware of the caveats.
Best, Leila [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuickSurveys
Kind regards
On 06/03/2019 22:12, Leila Zia wrote:
Hi all,
As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
If your language community is interested to have statistics on the distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is your chance to indicate interest at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reade...
I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
As always: this call is primarily a service to your language community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action is needed. :)
Best, Leila
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org