Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
Hi there, just wanted to touch on the autoredirection stuff. The thing mentioned on autoredirection is an enhancement for accesses to m.wikipedia.org/ webroot (not articles) for Wikipedia Zero users. As before, non-Wikipedia Zero users accessing m.wikipedia.org/ webroot continue to get redirected to en.m.wikipedia.org. It seems thus far that the enhancement for Wikipedia Zero users isn't causing harm, and our thinking is that if that holds, we should examine some application of the approach to m.wikipedia.org/ non-Wikipedia Zero-sourced access as well. As an extension of this thinking, looking into alternative placement of Read in another language or even a language shortlist (e.g., an API endpoint looks at Accept-Language and the top 3 pertinent languages get shimmed in) above the fold pertinent for the given user, taking into account JavaScript support level, may be worthwhile. -Adam On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 AM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: 1) Is the rise in global south page views specifically to *enwiki*, or is it to local wikis? Not actually an either/or. The answer seems to me to be yes, i.e. all wikis -- that is, all projects, all languages. It may *seem to you* to be yes, but the data indicates that the answer differs, depending where you look. For example, the data clearly indicates that the stunning rise in Iran is almost entirely due to enwiki. enwiki gains over 80 million page views, fawiki gains only 10 million. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics for a convincing graph. I think it's important that we determine the actual answers to these questions, instead of trusting our instincts. I definitely agree. I had misread your question to mean is the rise computed across all wikis, which is indeed not what you were asking. I apologize for the irrelevant answer. Some definitely do. Another major factor, mentioned today, is that in some countries, mobile devices just don't come with good local languages support, and people are putting up with that and using what the device does give them, which are generally the major, colonial languages. Hm, the word colonial bothers me here. I know you mean historically colonial, but in the modern world English is also a trade language, not just a formerly-colonial language. Much access to enwiki is due to its trade-language status. Certainly, there are very strong economic incentives to use English these days, and additionally other incentives, such as prestige real and imagined, still operating (and those, themselves, are still ripples of colonialism), but I did not mean 'colonial' here particularly strongly. I could have written European, I suppose, except there are many languages in Europe, and only a handful have been colonial languages. But the term is not important here, I think. I feel strongly that we have a moral obligation to offer good local language support, but I also feel that we shouldn't label and dismiss readers who want to learn/practice/find information in a trade language. (This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of simplewiki, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.) I don't see that I (or anyone) did dismiss that. In terms of our strategic goals of Reach and Participation, we are agnostic about which languages people contribute in, or consume in. In terms of our strategic goal of Diversity however, we do want to work towards adequate offerings in all languages in which people are actually seeking to consume knowledge. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com wrote: I was reading the presentation on metrics and the point about Mexico's decreasing of views on Wikipedia called my attention. I dug into the numbers a little more; see the graphs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics It's a bit confusing. At this moment I'm inclined to say that the computation of decliners was in some way erroneous; neither the page views for Mexico nor the overall pageviews for eswiki seem to support the large annual declines reported. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics I compute an annual decline for Mexico of 12.4% (compared to 23.2% reported at the metrics meeting), which compares to an eswiki annual decline of 4.8% (excludings bots and spiders). So Mexico is indeed concerning -- it's declining at three times the eswiki rate. But eswiki as a whole seems like it ought to also be a concern. And I'd like to understand why I can't reproduce the much higher numbers shown in the Metrics meeting. Thanks for taking
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
Hi. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 AM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: 1) Is the rise in global south page views specifically to *enwiki*, or is it to local wikis? Not actually an either/or. The answer seems to me to be yes, i.e. all wikis -- that is, all projects, all languages. It may *seem to you* to be yes, but the data indicates that the answer differs, depending where you look. For example, the data clearly indicates that the stunning rise in Iran is almost entirely due to enwiki. enwiki gains over 80 million page views, fawiki gains only 10 million. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics for a convincing graph. I think it's important that we determine the actual answers to these questions, instead of trusting our instincts. I definitely agree. I had misread your question to mean is the rise computed across all wikis, which is indeed not what you were asking. I apologize for the irrelevant answer. Some definitely do. Another major factor, mentioned today, is that in some countries, mobile devices just don't come with good local languages support, and people are putting up with that and using what the device does give them, which are generally the major, colonial languages. Hm, the word colonial bothers me here. I know you mean historically colonial, but in the modern world English is also a trade language, not just a formerly-colonial language. Much access to enwiki is due to its trade-language status. Certainly, there are very strong economic incentives to use English these days, and additionally other incentives, such as prestige real and imagined, still operating (and those, themselves, are still ripples of colonialism), but I did not mean 'colonial' here particularly strongly. I could have written European, I suppose, except there are many languages in Europe, and only a handful have been colonial languages. But the term is not important here, I think. I feel strongly that we have a moral obligation to offer good local language support, but I also feel that we shouldn't label and dismiss readers who want to learn/practice/find information in a trade language. (This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of simplewiki, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.) I don't see that I (or anyone) did dismiss that. In terms of our strategic goals of Reach and Participation, we are agnostic about which languages people contribute in, or consume in. In terms of our strategic goal of Diversity however, we do want to work towards adequate offerings in all languages in which people are actually seeking to consume knowledge. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com wrote: I was reading the presentation on metrics and the point about Mexico's decreasing of views on Wikipedia called my attention. I dug into the numbers a little more; see the graphs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics It's a bit confusing. At this moment I'm inclined to say that the computation of decliners was in some way erroneous; neither the page views for Mexico nor the overall pageviews for eswiki seem to support the large annual declines reported. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics I compute an annual decline for Mexico of 12.4% (compared to 23.2% reported at the metrics meeting), which compares to an eswiki annual decline of 4.8% (excludings bots and spiders). So Mexico is indeed concerning -- it's declining at three times the eswiki rate. But eswiki as a whole seems like it ought to also be a concern. And I'd like to understand why I can't reproduce the much higher numbers shown in the Metrics meeting. Thanks for taking another swing at the data. I do think it's important to get better data that we have high confidence in. We're not quite there yet. A. -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org Will investment in the Content Translation tool affect the balance between enwiki and local wiki pageviews going forward? That would be one long-term effect to watch for, I think! I was blown away by the progress in the Content Translation tools + interfaces that I saw a couple of months ago. These are beautiful and empowering; they deserve very wide use indeed. S ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
Salvador A, 05/12/2014 08:05: From your answer to Scott I read that those are only statistics from enwiki, do you know if the same happened in eswiki or, conversely, eswiki grow the number of views? In the last case I could assume that we are converting English readers into Spanish readers and it might be taken as a normal migration. Although in the first case I would be worried because we are loosing those readers definitely and it would be needed adjust some strategies in our country. https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryTrends.htm#Mexico answers this question, unless the multi-year trend changed in 2014. With some digging in the nearby pages and archives you can probably see the data for 2014 as well. (With all the usual disclaimers on those reports.) Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: 1) Is the rise in global south page views specifically to *enwiki*, or is it to local wikis? Not actually an either/or. The answer seems to me to be yes, i.e. all wikis -- that is, all projects, all languages. It may *seem to you* to be yes, but the data indicates that the answer differs, depending where you look. For example, the data clearly indicates that the stunning rise in Iran is almost entirely due to enwiki. enwiki gains over 80 million page views, fawiki gains only 10 million. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics for a convincing graph. I think it's important that we determine the actual answers to these questions, instead of trusting our instincts. Some definitely do. Another major factor, mentioned today, is that in some countries, mobile devices just don't come with good local languages support, and people are putting up with that and using what the device does give them, which are generally the major, colonial languages. Hm, the word colonial bothers me here. I know you mean historically colonial, but in the modern world English is also a trade language, not just a formerly-colonial language. Much access to enwiki is due to its trade-language status. I feel strongly that we have a moral obligation to offer good local language support, but I also feel that we shouldn't label and dismiss readers who want to learn/practice/find information in a trade language. (This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of simplewiki, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.) On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com wrote: I was reading the presentation on metrics and the point about Mexico's decreasing of views on Wikipedia called my attention. I dug into the numbers a little more; see the graphs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics It's a bit confusing. At this moment I'm inclined to say that the computation of decliners was in some way erroneous; neither the page views for Mexico nor the overall pageviews for eswiki seem to support the large annual declines reported. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics I compute an annual decline for Mexico of 12.4% (compared to 23.2% reported at the metrics meeting), which compares to an eswiki annual decline of 4.8% (excludings bots and spiders). So Mexico is indeed concerning -- it's declining at three times the eswiki rate. But eswiki as a whole seems like it ought to also be a concern. And I'd like to understand why I can't reproduce the much higher numbers shown in the Metrics meeting. --scott -- (http://cscott.net) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
REMINDER: This meeting starts in 30 minutes. On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Praveena Maharaj pmaha...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear all, The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 7 PM UTC (11 AM PST). The IRC channel is #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast as a live YouTube stream. The current structure of the meeting is: * Welcoming recent hires * Update and QA with the Executive Director, if available * Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also specialized reports and analytic * Review of financials * Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority initiatives Please review https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further information about how to participate. We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting. Thank you, Praveena -- Praveena Maharaj Executive Assistant to the VP of Product Strategy and the VP of Engineering Wikimedia Foundation \\ www.wikimediafoundation.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
Thanks everyone for a fantastic metrics meeting. I had two questions which I raised on IRC which didn't get a chance to be addressed. Briefly: 1) Is the rise in global south page views specifically to *enwiki*, or is it to local wikis? 2) Does the page view decrease in Latin America correspond to a decline in the eswiki project specifically? How do our numbers look if we look at projects rather than countries? Oliver shared one of the tools used to collate the graphs seen in the meeting, and I was able to determine, for example, that the rise in pageviews from Iran is almost entirely due to rises in Iranian access to enwiki. The growth in views of fawiki and other wikis from Iran is much more modest. It seems that our thinking about redirecting to localized content and the rise of mobile in the global south should be informed by these analytics. Are folks coming to enwiki because that's where the content and editors are? If so we might be doing readers a disservice by redirecting them to a local wiki without the content they are seeking. (Perhaps the Content Translation tool can help.) If our userbase in the global south is coming from mobile, than it is important to provide localized editing tools for mobile; less so if they are primarily English-speaking and can take advantage of the desktop editors of enwiki. Will investment in the Content Translation tool affect the balance between enwiki and local wiki pageviews going forward? I dug into the numbers a little bit, others who are interested can join me in a discussion over at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics Thanks for your attention... --scott ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thanks everyone for a fantastic metrics meeting. I had two questions which I raised on IRC which didn't get a chance to be addressed. Briefly: 1) Is the rise in global south page views specifically to *enwiki*, or is it to local wikis? Not actually an either/or. The answer seems to me to be yes, i.e. all wikis -- that is, all projects, all languages. It seems that our thinking about redirecting to localized content and the rise of mobile in the global south should be informed by these analytics. Are folks coming to enwiki because that's where the content and editors are? Some definitely do. Another major factor, mentioned today, is that in some countries, mobile devices just don't come with good local languages support, and people are putting up with that and using what the device does give them, which are generally the major, colonial languages. If so we might be doing readers a disservice by redirecting them to a local wiki without the content they are seeking. (Perhaps the Content Translation tool can help.) If our userbase in the global south is coming from mobile, than it is important to provide localized editing tools for mobile; less so if they are primarily English-speaking and can take advantage of the desktop editors of enwiki. Remember that while global south is a shorthand label we use for convenience to group together a large number of countries, it's often quite misleading to generalize about it, *particularly* around language questions. In Anglophone Africa, for example, most people are used to looking for information online in English and not in indigenous languages. But in Brazil, people consume information in Portuguese, but many (16%) also refer to the English Wikipedia (and intriguingly, 1 in 3 *edits* from Brazil is to ENWP!), presumably for its broader coverage or higher average quality. In Ukraine, 70% read the Russian Wikipedia and only 17% read the Ukrainian Wikipedia; interviews tell me this is largely due to device defaults, beyond the obvious different in size and average quality. This page reveals some of those breakdowns: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryBreakdown.htm Will investment in the Content Translation tool affect the balance between enwiki and local wiki pageviews going forward? That would be one long-term effect to watch for, I think! Thanks for digging up further info! A. -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
Hi Asaf! I was reading the presentation on metrics and the point about Mexico's decreasing of views on Wikipedia called my attention. From your answer to Scott I read that those are only statistics from enwiki, do you know if the same happened in eswiki or, conversely, eswiki grow the number of views? In the last case I could assume that we are converting English readers into Spanish readers and it might be taken as a normal migration. Although in the first case I would be worried because we are loosing those readers definitely and it would be needed adjust some strategies in our country. Sorry if I'm doing a simplist reading of the metrics. Regards! El jueves, 4 de diciembre de 2014, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org escribió: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org javascript:; wrote: Thanks everyone for a fantastic metrics meeting. I had two questions which I raised on IRC which didn't get a chance to be addressed. Briefly: 1) Is the rise in global south page views specifically to *enwiki*, or is it to local wikis? Not actually an either/or. The answer seems to me to be yes, i.e. all wikis -- that is, all projects, all languages. It seems that our thinking about redirecting to localized content and the rise of mobile in the global south should be informed by these analytics. Are folks coming to enwiki because that's where the content and editors are? Some definitely do. Another major factor, mentioned today, is that in some countries, mobile devices just don't come with good local languages support, and people are putting up with that and using what the device does give them, which are generally the major, colonial languages. If so we might be doing readers a disservice by redirecting them to a local wiki without the content they are seeking. (Perhaps the Content Translation tool can help.) If our userbase in the global south is coming from mobile, than it is important to provide localized editing tools for mobile; less so if they are primarily English-speaking and can take advantage of the desktop editors of enwiki. Remember that while global south is a shorthand label we use for convenience to group together a large number of countries, it's often quite misleading to generalize about it, *particularly* around language questions. In Anglophone Africa, for example, most people are used to looking for information online in English and not in indigenous languages. But in Brazil, people consume information in Portuguese, but many (16%) also refer to the English Wikipedia (and intriguingly, 1 in 3 *edits* from Brazil is to ENWP!), presumably for its broader coverage or higher average quality. In Ukraine, 70% read the Russian Wikipedia and only 17% read the Ukrainian Wikipedia; interviews tell me this is largely due to device defaults, beyond the obvious different in size and average quality. This page reveals some of those breakdowns: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryBreakdown.htm Will investment in the Content Translation tool affect the balance between enwiki and local wiki pageviews going forward? That would be one long-term effect to watch for, I think! Thanks for digging up further info! A. -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe -- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
Dear all, The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 7 PM UTC (11 AM PST). The IRC channel is #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast as a live YouTube stream. The current structure of the meeting is: * Welcoming recent hires * Update and QA with the Executive Director, if available * Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also specialized reports and analytic * Review of financials * Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority initiatives Please review https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further information about how to participate. We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting. Thank you, Praveena -- Praveena Maharaj Executive Assistant to the VP of Product Strategy and the VP of Engineering Wikimedia Foundation \\ www.wikimediafoundation.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
