Paul, I happen to agree that the way content changes is one of the most fascinating things that we have. My work with the Analytics team won't be done until we have a nice way to do this kind of research. Right now, people can use the historical dumps but that's very unfriendly.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Paul J. Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > For my particular interests, I am fine with that. But I think historians > would disagree. A lot can be learned from documented ideas that didn't come > to fruition. > > Paul > > At 2015-10-15 11:08 am, you wrote: > > Hi, > > You are all correct on archiving old pages that might be of research > interest. We are all for that. The pages we hope to delete are about > systems that never existed but were just talked about, and the idea was > replaced by something else that exists now. It doesn't make sense for us to > have those pages. Anything that is about something has been worked on, and > is not active any more will be archived. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Paul J. Weiss <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I am definitely on the side of archiving rather than deleting. Some of my > research interests involve looking at past documentation. Retrieving > outdated documentation is okay, as long as it is clear immediately that it > is indeed outdated. We can also enable searching from within WMF webspace > to exclude outdated documentation. There are many ways to accomplish these > goals: adding "Archived" to the title, making a new namespace, using > categories, etc. > > Paul > > Paul J. Weiss > PhD student, Information science > University of Washington > > At 2015-10-15 10:48 am, you wrote: > > >I've always thought that blanking the page and replacing it with a > template which says it's historical and links to the historical version > of the page would be a good solution that balances preserving history with > deemphasizing outdated information. > > This would make info show up in searches still, which we definitely do not > want. Seems that deleting is a better option. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Neil P. Quinn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I've always thought that blanking the page and replacing it with a > template which says it's historical and links to the historical version of > the page would be a good solution that balances preserving history with > deemphasizing outdated information. > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Dan Andreescu <[email protected] > > wrote: > We have a documentation cleanup day coming up soon, and we've > just got > delete permissions so we can actually clean. > Please don't delete old content, mark it as {{historical}} or {{outdated}} > and archive it instead. > > > I'm all for following the norm here, but wouldn't that mean it still shows > up in searches? That's what I'm trying to avoid, minimizing the > confusion. > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > > -- > Neil P. Quinn <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>, > product analyst > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > > -- > --Madhu :) > _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
