Henning,
If we're going to solve the problem of dead links, it needs to involve automation, at least for the heavy lifting. Obviously, if a human contributor can add a better source, that's great. But there are more dead links than people willing to replace them.
On English Wikipedia, there's Category:All articles with dead external links, and it contains more than 134,000 articles[1] -- and those are just the pages where somebody's added the Dead link template. There are a lot of missing references -- not just on English WP, but on all the projects -- and connecting those links to a live archive makes them useful again.
For links that were moved, we may be able to collect and use that information -- I know that we're looking into what kind of metadata we can collect when a new link is added to the page. But I think finding alternative sources has to come from human contributors, and that's hard to scale.
Danny PM, Community Tech
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_dead_external_links
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
On 16.12.2015 21:12, Danny Horn wrote:
#1. Migrate dead links to the Wayback Machine (111 support votes)
I really hope, you don't follow that wish, as it is detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia.
Switching dead links to the archive is a move to a dead end, instead of looking for
a) the new correct URL, as many links were just moved. b) alternative sources for the same fact.
Ciao Henning
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Hello
I wish to ask if volunteer developers can participate in one of the top 10 wishes of the community wishlist or can only start working on those wishes that are at the rest of the list or if volunteer developers need a particular permission for that.
Thanks
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Danny Horn dhorn@wikimedia.org wrote:
Henning,
If we're going to solve the problem of dead links, it needs to involve automation, at least for the heavy lifting. Obviously, if a human contributor can add a better source, that's great. But there are more dead links than people willing to replace them.
On English Wikipedia, there's Category:All articles with dead external links, and it contains more than 134,000 articles[1] -- and those are just the pages where somebody's added the Dead link template. There are a lot of missing references -- not just on English WP, but on all the projects -- and connecting those links to a live archive makes them useful again.
For links that were moved, we may be able to collect and use that information -- I know that we're looking into what kind of metadata we can collect when a new link is added to the page. But I think finding alternative sources has to come from human contributors, and that's hard to scale.
Danny PM, Community Tech
[1]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_dead_external_links
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Henning Schlottmann < h.schlottmann@gmx.net> wrote:
On 16.12.2015 21:12, Danny Horn wrote:
#1. Migrate dead links to the Wayback Machine (111 support votes)
I really hope, you don't follow that wish, as it is detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia.
Switching dead links to the archive is a move to a dead end, instead of looking for
a) the new correct URL, as many links were just moved. b) alternative sources for the same fact.
Ciao Henning
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I dont speak for the comunity tech team - but im pretty sure they would love any and all help (as would pretty much any foundation team). It is probably a good idea to check in with the team and tell them what you are planning to work on in order to make sure you arent duplicating any work
--bawolff
On Friday, January 8, 2016, Bill Morrisson billmorrissonjr@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I wish to ask if volunteer developers can participate in one of the top 10 wishes of the community wishlist or can only start working on those wishes that are at the rest of the list or if volunteer developers need a particular permission for that.
Thanks
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Danny Horn dhorn@wikimedia.org wrote:
Henning,
If we're going to solve the problem of dead links, it needs to involve automation, at least for the heavy lifting. Obviously, if a human contributor can add a better source, that's great. But there are more
dead
links than people willing to replace them.
On English Wikipedia, there's Category:All articles with dead external links, and it contains more than 134,000 articles[1] -- and those are
just
the pages where somebody's added the Dead link template. There are a lot
of
missing references -- not just on English WP, but on all the projects -- and connecting those links to a live archive makes them useful again.
For links that were moved, we may be able to collect and use that information -- I know that we're looking into what kind of metadata we
can
collect when a new link is added to the page. But I think finding alternative sources has to come from human contributors, and that's hard
to
scale.
Danny PM, Community Tech
[1]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_dead_external_links
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Henning Schlottmann < h.schlottmann@gmx.net> wrote:
On 16.12.2015 21:12, Danny Horn wrote:
#1. Migrate dead links to the Wayback Machine (111 support votes)
I really hope, you don't follow that wish, as it is detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia.
Switching dead links to the archive is a move to a dead end, instead of looking for
a) the new correct URL, as many links were just moved. b) alternative sources for the same fact.
Ciao Henning
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Oh, what a good question. I hadn't really thought about it before, and I should have; thanks for bringing it up.
We've got a wishlist survey Phabricator board, with all of the core tracking tickets: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/community-wishlist-survey/
The tickets from the top 10 all have related investigation tickets, and it would be great to have people participate on those threads. Right now, we're still in the investigation phase for pretty much everything, so it's more talking than coding at the moment. That'll change soon, as we move towards getting to work on some of the projects.
We're going to publish a first report on the preliminary assessments, including all the discussions we had with people at the Developer Summit earlier this week. I'm going to work on that next week, hopefully publishing on-wiki by the end of the week (or not long after). So there'll be more info coming soon, once I've had time to transfer all the knowledge from my notebook to Phabricator and wiki pages. :)
Danny Horn Product Manager, Community Tech
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
I dont speak for the comunity tech team - but im pretty sure they would love any and all help (as would pretty much any foundation team). It is probably a good idea to check in with the team and tell them what you are planning to work on in order to make sure you arent duplicating any work
--bawolff
On Friday, January 8, 2016, Bill Morrisson billmorrissonjr@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I wish to ask if volunteer developers can participate in one of the top
10
wishes of the community wishlist or can only start working on those
wishes
that are at the rest of the list or if volunteer developers need a particular permission for that.
Thanks
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Danny Horn dhorn@wikimedia.org wrote:
Henning,
If we're going to solve the problem of dead links, it needs to involve automation, at least for the heavy lifting. Obviously, if a human contributor can add a better source, that's great. But there are more
dead
links than people willing to replace them.
On English Wikipedia, there's Category:All articles with dead external links, and it contains more than 134,000 articles[1] -- and those are
just
the pages where somebody's added the Dead link template. There are a lot
of
missing references -- not just on English WP, but on all the projects -- and connecting those links to a live archive makes them useful again.
For links that were moved, we may be able to collect and use that information -- I know that we're looking into what kind of metadata we
can
collect when a new link is added to the page. But I think finding alternative sources has to come from human contributors, and that's hard
to
scale.
Danny PM, Community Tech
[1]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_dead_external_links
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Henning Schlottmann < h.schlottmann@gmx.net> wrote:
On 16.12.2015 21:12, Danny Horn wrote:
#1. Migrate dead links to the Wayback Machine (111 support votes)
I really hope, you don't follow that wish, as it is detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia.
Switching dead links to the archive is a move to a dead end, instead
of
looking for
a) the new correct URL, as many links were just moved. b) alternative sources for the same fact.
Ciao Henning
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Bill Morrisson billmorrissonjr@gmail.com wrote:
I wish to ask if volunteer developers can participate in one of the top 10 wishes of the community wishlist or can only start working on those wishes that are at the rest of the list or if volunteer developers need a particular permission for that.
As Danny said, this is a wonderful thing to point out, and his answer way more authoritative than mine. Thinking back to my early MediaWiki contribution experience, I would have loved to have had a ranked list of "these are things that are really important" so that I knew my contribution would ultimately be appreciated and important to the project.
Are you asking on behalf of a specific potential contributor (e.g. yourself) or are you making a more general request that we don't accidentally cookie lick[1] the ideas on this list?
Rob [1] Cookie licking: metaphorically taking a cookie, licking it and putting it back on the cookie tray without eating it (essentially preventing anyone else from having it) http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking
On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Bill Morrisson billmorrissonjr@gmail.com wrote:
I wish to ask if volunteer developers can participate in one of the top
10
wishes of the community wishlist or can only start working on those
wishes
that are at the rest of the list or if volunteer developers need a particular permission for that.
As Danny said, this is a wonderful thing to point out, and his answer way more authoritative than mine. Thinking back to my early MediaWiki contribution experience, I would have loved to have had a ranked list of "these are things that are really important" so that I knew my contribution would ultimately be appreciated and important to the project.
RIP bugzilla votes...
-- bawolff
On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 12:13 -0800, Brian Wolff wrote:
On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Rob Lanphier wrote:
As Danny said, this is a wonderful thing to point out, and his answer way more authoritative than mine. Thinking back to my early MediaWiki contribution experience, I would have loved to have had a ranked list of "these are things that are really important" so that I knew my contribution would ultimately be appreciated and important to the project.
RIP bugzilla votes...
I consider votes within a separate developer-focused tool (Bugzilla, which required a separate account) less representative than on-wiki. The latter allows a broader variety of community members to participate and raise their voices in an environment they are familiar with.
andre
Thanks a lot for your input, my doubts are clear now :)
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Andre Klapper aklapper@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 12:13 -0800, Brian Wolff wrote:
On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Rob Lanphier wrote:
As Danny said, this is a wonderful thing to point out, and his answer way more authoritative than mine. Thinking back to my early MediaWiki contribution experience, I would have loved to have had a ranked list of "these are things that are really important" so that I knew my contribution would ultimately be appreciated and important to the project.
RIP bugzilla votes...
I consider votes within a separate developer-focused tool (Bugzilla, which required a separate account) less representative than on-wiki. The latter allows a broader variety of community members to participate and raise their voices in an environment they are familiar with.
andre
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
@Rob Lanphier I was asking on behalf of myself
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Bill Morrisson billmorrissonjr@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks a lot for your input, my doubts are clear now :)
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Andre Klapper aklapper@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 12:13 -0800, Brian Wolff wrote:
On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Rob Lanphier wrote:
As Danny said, this is a wonderful thing to point out, and his answer way more authoritative than mine. Thinking back to my early MediaWiki contribution experience, I would have loved to have had a ranked list of "these are things that are really important" so that I knew my contribution would ultimately be appreciated and important to the project.
RIP bugzilla votes...
I consider votes within a separate developer-focused tool (Bugzilla, which required a separate account) less representative than on-wiki. The latter allows a broader variety of community members to participate and raise their voices in an environment they are familiar with.
andre
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org