headers
Carcharoth | 1 Jun 2012 12:19

Re: Link removal experiment; Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

On 5/31/12, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On average, the articles concerned had less than 100 page views a day
> going off stats.grok.se, so by just a few days, most of the edits
> should have been reverted - if they were going to be, of course.

This assumes that page views correspond to people reading the pages. I
suspect that a lot of people viewing a page just scan briefly for what
they are looking for (I typically use Ctl+F to find something if I am
in a hurry), or realise they are in the wrong place and click away or
click onwards through another link. There is no way of measuring the
number of people that stop and carefully read a page as if they were
sitting down to do some bedtime or leisure reading, as opposed to just
looking up some factoid.

> And deletionists have no policy knowledge?

Deletionists are not the monolithic body of people that you seem to
think they are. Those with these tendencies (though I'm reluctant to
lump people under a label) vary widely in their knowledge of policy,
which should be no surprise.

I'm also puzzled by this view you have that removal of external links
is a form of deletionism. I've always understood deletionism to be the
removal of entire articles and restricting Wikipedia to a relatively
narrow set of articles. Removal of content within articles is a
completely different ballgame.

Carcharoth
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Charles Matthews | 1 Jun 2012 13:51

Re: Link removal experiment; Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

On 1 June 2012 11:19, Carcharoth <carcharothwp <at> googlemail.com> wrote:

>> And deletionists have no policy knowledge?
>
> Deletionists are not the monolithic body of people that you seem to
> think they are. Those with these tendencies (though I'm reluctant to
> lump people under a label) vary widely in their knowledge of policy,
> which should be no surprise.
>
> I'm also puzzled by this view you have that removal of external links
> is a form of deletionism. I've always understood deletionism to be the
> removal of entire articles and restricting Wikipedia to a relatively
> narrow set of articles. Removal of content within articles is a
> completely different ballgame.

Gah. WP really needs the tension between quality and quantity to be
expressed by a two-party system like it needs a hole in the head. And
it needs deletion debates whose length is greatest where the outcome
matters least (i.e. the indifference point for inclusion) like several
more.  Further, people who think "knowledge of policy" amounts to
knowing the letter of the law are a menace, as are people who think
detailed policies are there to help them win arguments, rather than
for the general good of the project (it being easier to prove your
point if you assume what you want to prove at the outset).

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gwern Branwen | 1 Jun 2012 16:15
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Link removal experiment; Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
> This assumes that page views correspond to people reading the pages. I
> suspect that a lot of people viewing a page just scan briefly for what
> they are looking for (I typically use Ctl+F to find something if I am
> in a hurry), or realise they are in the wrong place and click away or
> click onwards through another link. There is no way of measuring the
> number of people that stop and carefully read a page as if they were
> sitting down to do some bedtime or leisure reading, as opposed to just
> looking up some factoid.

I'm sure the numbers are false, but numbers are always false. You make
points which are equally true of any article's statistics on
stats.grok.se (including the most popular ones), and this
overestimation is counterbalanced by the many forms of
*under*estimation going into the stats.grok.se numbers, like not
counting page views on any mirrors at all. Unless you have a reason to
think that the net error, inclusive of all these sources, leads to
overestimation, pointing out the possible error is a bit sophomoric.

--

-- 
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Nathan | 1 Jun 2012 22:00
Picon

Re: Link removal experiment; Re: "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp <at> googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > This assumes that page views correspond to people reading the pages. I
> > suspect that a lot of people viewing a page just scan briefly for what
> > they are looking for (I typically use Ctl+F to find something if I am
> > in a hurry), or realise they are in the wrong place and click away or
> > click onwards through another link. There is no way of measuring the
> > number of people that stop and carefully read a page as if they were
> > sitting down to do some bedtime or leisure reading, as opposed to just
> > looking up some factoid.
>
> I'm sure the numbers are false, but numbers are always false. You make
> points which are equally true of any article's statistics on
> stats.grok.se (including the most popular ones), and this
> overestimation is counterbalanced by the many forms of
> *under*estimation going into the stats.grok.se numbers, like not
> counting page views on any mirrors at all. Unless you have a reason to
> think that the net error, inclusive of all these sources, leads to
> overestimation, pointing out the possible error is a bit sophomoric.
>
> --

In which a discussion is repeatedly reframed as a confrontation, for no
apparent reason and to no apparent benefit.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Dupont | 4 Jun 2012 21:27
Gravatar

soon to be deleted articles

HI there,
I have setup a script to archive articles to be deleted every 30 minutes,
http://archive.org/details/wikipedia-delete-2012-06

here are two that I wonder why they will be deleted :
Rootstrikers
TEDx_Amrita_2011

http://archive.org/download/wikipedia-delete-2012-06/wtarchive040612210120.zip

--

-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steven Walling | 7 Jun 2012 23:56
Picon

New experiment running on English Wikipedia

Hi everyone,

As announced on the Village Pump,[1] the "editor engagement experiments"
team has just launched our first project on English Wikipedia. We've done
some small-scale experiments prior to this,[2] but I wanted to share this
here, since this is our first one modifying the interface in any way.

The basic gist is that for one week starting today, some half of visitors
to a small selection of articles (a little under 3,000) will see a new
timestamp that tells them when the page was last edited. It will show up in
the upper right, aligned with the title and to the left of any icons like
the FA star or protection lock. It also links to the history.

This isn't a huge change, but we hope that by more prominently highlighting
the changing nature of articles, we can show more people what's going on in
the wiki, as well the fact that some articles badly need updating.

Thanks, and please let us know if you see any bugs.

--

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=496500789#New_feature_experiment
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Engagement_Experiments
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Katie Chan | 8 Jun 2012 13:07
Favicon
Gravatar

Bing tie-up with Encyclopaedia Britannica

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18365767

"Microsoft has signed a deal with Encyclopaedia Britannica to add 
entries from the reference work to Bing."

KTC

--

-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
     - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
David Gerard | 8 Jun 2012 13:36
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Bing tie-up with Encyclopaedia Britannica

On 8 June 2012 12:07, Katie Chan <ktc <at> ktchan.info> wrote:

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18365767
> "Microsoft has signed a deal with Encyclopaedia Britannica to add entries
> from the reference work to Bing."

Now all they need is to add them to MySpace.

- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Andreas Kolbe | 8 Jun 2012 13:58
Picon

Re: Bing tie-up with Encyclopaedia Britannica

Another link that appears in Bing is Qwiki. This has a voice reading out
the leads of Wikipedia articles, accompanied by related images.

Example:  http://www.qwiki.com/q/Doris_Lessing

http://searchengineland.com/bing-britannica-partnership-123930

Qwiki also enables users to create their own multimedia presentations.

Andreas

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard <dgerard <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8 June 2012 12:07, Katie Chan <ktc <at> ktchan.info> wrote:
>
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18365767
> > "Microsoft has signed a deal with Encyclopaedia Britannica to add entries
> > from the reference work to Bing."
>
>
> Now all they need is to add them to MySpace.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mike Dupont | 8 Jun 2012 14:37
Gravatar

Re: Bing tie-up with Encyclopaedia Britannica

Oh, nice I have worked on something like that on 2007....
https://code.launchpad.net/~jamesmikedupont/introspectorreader/wikipedia-strategy

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Another link that appears in Bing is Qwiki. This has a voice reading out
> the leads of Wikipedia articles, accompanied by related images.
>
> Example:  http://www.qwiki.com/q/Doris_Lessing
>
> http://searchengineland.com/bing-britannica-partnership-123930
>
> Qwiki also enables users to create their own multimedia presentations.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard <dgerard <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8 June 2012 12:07, Katie Chan <ktc <at> ktchan.info> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18365767
> > > "Microsoft has signed a deal with Encyclopaedia Britannica to add
> entries
> > > from the reference work to Bing."
> >
> >
> > Now all they need is to add them to MySpace.
> >
> >
> > - d.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane