Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:12 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article), paragraph 3: Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt. Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered or used via these services. If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not, then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered. Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar. As i see it illegal does not mean necessarily immoral or bad intention. And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free. Rupert ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe Wikipedia, or at least portions of it, is illegal under many countries' laws. Any article showing a swastika, even if it's a neutral article about Nazi Germany or the like, is illegal under German law. Probably almost all of Wikipedia is illegal under North Korean law. It cannot reasonably be expected that WMF would follow the laws of every country in the world. Wikimedia's infrastructure and staff are located in the United States, so WMF must respect US law. No other really is relevant. I live in the US. I don't follow the laws of Germany, or Iran, or China, in my day to day life. Why should I? I'm not subject to them. Todd Allen -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article), paragraph 3: Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt. Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered or used via these services. If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not, then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered. Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar. Well, they are not illegal, as they do not fall under Dutch jurisdiction. As i see it illegal does not mean necessarily immoral or bad intention. And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free. For me personally, it is a moral question. As specified above, it's not illegal for the simple reason that it's not been rolled out or planned in countries with net neutrality laws as far as I know. To me the question is: Even if it is not illegal, is it a good idea from a moral standpoint? I don't think WMF has spoken out about net neutrality, but undoubtedly many people within our movement stand behind it. If the WMF would endorse net neutrality, and if Wikipedia Zero would break it, then supporting Wikipedia Zero would be hypocritical. For me personally, the solution is to stand for a more relaxed definition of net neutrality, where giving an alternative or better service for specific services is not problematic as long as this does not adversely affect service for other services. YMMV. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
Wikipedia, or at least portions of it, is illegal under many countries' laws. Any article showing a swastika, even if it's a neutral article about Nazi Germany or the like, is illegal under German law. Probably almost all of Wikipedia is illegal under North Korean law. It cannot reasonably be expected that WMF would follow the laws of every country in the world. Wikimedia's infrastructure and staff are located in the United States, so WMF must respect US law. No other really is relevant. I live in the US. I don't follow the laws of Germany, or Iran, or China, in my day to day life. Why should I? I'm not subject to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_§_86ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C3%82%C2%A7_86a: “(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. […]” Hence, German law of course allows usage of the swastika in Wikipedia, one of the best places to further civil enlightenment. Yet, one German left-wing party member, Katina Schubert ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katina_Schubert ), “filed criminal charges against German Wikipedia […] for featuring Nazi symbols such as the swastika in its articles [… but] after criticism from other members of her party, Schubert withdrew her charges.” Best regards Martin Rulsch Btw., great combination of country laws … ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] State of the Map 2013 - OSM conference in Birmingham, England.
Andy, I *may* be coming - I haven't decided yet... although I know I have to make up my mind quite soon! Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 25 August 2013 18:45, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: [cross-posted] The OSM equivalent of Wikimania, State of the Map http://2013.stateofthemap.org, is in Birmingham, England (my home town), from 6-8 September, just under two weeks away (places are still available!). I will be there. Are any of you coming? Should we have Wikipedia meetup? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 mailing list 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] State of the Map 2013 - OSM conference in Birmingham, England.
On 28 August 2013 11:07, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I *may* be coming - I haven't decided yet... although I know I have to make up my mind quite soon! It would be lovely to see you; would you like to bring (or otherwise post me) 200 WMUK flyers? (Most attendees will know about Wikipedia WMF, but probably not the chapter). -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] State of the Map 2013 - OSM conference in Birmingham, England.
I will get some in the post to you today Andy. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 28 August 2013 12:18, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 28 August 2013 11:07, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I *may* be coming - I haven't decided yet... although I know I have to make up my mind quite soon! It would be lovely to see you; would you like to bring (or otherwise post me) 200 WMUK flyers? (Most attendees will know about Wikipedia WMF, but probably not the chapter). -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 mailing list 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] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009?
On 28/08/2013, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone come up with a formulae for the ratio between vandalism prevented by the edit filters and lost edits on Wiki? ... Regards Hi WSC, Could you link to where there is a definition of what the edit filters are and what they are supposed to do? I recall having problems including urls like youtube, but I'm not sure if that blacklist is the same thing. If this was something only implemented on the English Wikipedia project, it might be more relevant to raise on wikien-l. Cheers, Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009?
The question can't really be answered without knowing what you want to achieve; I'll start from the end. WereSpielChequers, 28/08/2013 14:13: This is of more than academic interest, if we simply ignore this effect and make decisions based on the remaining raw edits after the edit filter, then the more efficient the edit filter gets at preventing vandalism the more we would be beating ourselves up for losing edits. Usually we consider the number of active users, which is less affected by this. Editing activity should be measured using http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm which allows to check for unreverted edits (just updated by Erik after a few years it had been dormant). If your aim is measuring the impact AbuseFilter in reducing patrolling efforts, then it's another matter. I've requested some reports in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42359 : there are already some DB queries but we lack a visualisation. You can also use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abuse_filter to find what wikis used (or not) the abuse filter and how, before it was enabled by default on all wikis. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] State of the Map 2013 - OSM conference in Birmingham, England.
300, please, if not too late - just seen the latest booking stats ;-) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk On Aug 28, 2013 12:29 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I will get some in the post to you today Andy. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 28 August 2013 12:18, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 28 August 2013 11:07, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I *may* be coming - I haven't decided yet... although I know I have to make up my mind quite soon! It would be lovely to see you; would you like to bring (or otherwise post me) 200 WMUK flyers? (Most attendees will know about Wikipedia WMF, but probably not the chapter). -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 mailing list 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 mailing list 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] [Language Engineering] Reminder: Bug triage for RTL bugs today August 28, 2013 at 1700 UTC/1000 PDT
Hello, This is a reminder that the Language Engineering team will be hosting an hour long bug triage for R-T-L bugs later today, i.e. August 28, 2013 at 1700 UTC/1000 PDT on the IRC channel #mediawiki-i18n (Freenode). etherpad link: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/BugTriage-i18n-2013-08 Thanks Runa -- Forwarded message -- From: Runa Bhattacharjee rbhattachar...@wikimedia.org Date: Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM Subject: Language Engineering bug triage session for RTL language bugs - Aug 28th 2013, Wednesday 1700 UTC/1000PDT To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, MediaWiki internationalisation mediawiki-i...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello, The Wikimedia Language Engineering team will be hosting a bug triage session on Wednesday, August 28th 2013 at 17:00 UTC (10:00 PDT) for some of the bugs that exist in languages written from Right-to-Left (RTL). During this 1 hour session we will be using the etherpad linked below to collaborate. We have already listed some bugs, but please feel free to add more bugs (or file new ones!), and comments about what you’d like to see addressed during the session. You can send questions directly to me on email or IRC (nick: arrbee). Please see below for the event details. Thank you. regards Runa === Event Details === # What: Bug triage session for RTL language bugs # Date: August 28, 2013 (Wednesday) # Time: 1700-1800 UTC, 1000-1100 PDT (Timezone conversion: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20130828T1700 ) # IRC Channel: #mediawiki-i18n (Freenode) # Etherpad: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/BugTriage-i18n-2013-08 Questions can be sent to: runa at wikimedia dot org -- Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009?
Thanks Nemo, Just because the edit filter is enabled by default doesn't mean that every wiki has people optimising it to find vandalism in their language. I'm trying to work out what the underlying real level of editing has been since 2009. The problem with measuring either unreverted edits or edits by active users is that the edit filters don't just lose us a large proportion of the vandalism that we used to get, they also lose us a lot of goodfaith edits that have ceased to be necessary, including the vandalism reversions, warnings and block messages that have been automated away by the edit filter. The stats at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm get round part of that by only measuring mainspace edits, so they don't count the warnings and block messages that we've lost. Though they presumably have lost the reversion of vandalism that has now been prevented by the edit filter. But measuring article space edits has its own problems - the more article creation has shifted to sandboxes in userspace and especially to on EN wiki to WP space as part of Articles for creation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation the less meaningful it is to measure the different spaces as if their boundaries were immutable. I appreciate that some of these things are difficult to measure, but sometimes it is the difficult stuff that is important. A case in point being the increasing tendency to revert unsourced edits on EN Wiki. The stats you quote treat all reversions the same, so the rise in simply reverting unsourced edits would appear to be more than masked by a combination of the loss of vandalism reversions to the edit filter, and the inreasing speed and sophistication of the vandalfighting bots. Regards Jonathan On 28 August 2013 13:49, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: The question can't really be answered without knowing what you want to achieve; I'll start from the end. WereSpielChequers, 28/08/2013 14:13: This is of more than academic interest, if we simply ignore this effect and make decisions based on the remaining raw edits after the edit filter, then the more efficient the edit filter gets at preventing vandalism the more we would be beating ourselves up for losing edits. Usually we consider the number of active users, which is less affected by this. Editing activity should be measured using http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htmwhich allows to check for unreverted edits (just updated by Erik after a few years it had been dormant). If your aim is measuring the impact AbuseFilter in reducing patrolling efforts, then it's another matter. I've requested some reports in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/show_bug.cgi?id=42359https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42359: there are already some DB queries but we lack a visualisation. You can also use https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Abuse_filterhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abuse_filterto find what wikis used (or not) the abuse filter and how, before it was enabled by default on all wikis. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009?
WereSpielChequers, 28/08/2013 17:14: Just because the edit filter is enabled by default doesn't mean that every wiki has people optimising it to find vandalism in their language. This is what the bugzilla link is about. :) I'm trying to work out what the underlying real level of editing has been since 2009. For what purposes? The following sentence seems to be about something else: The problem with measuring either unreverted edits or edits by active users is that the edit filters don't just lose us a large proportion of the vandalism that we used to get, they also lose us a lot of goodfaith edits that have ceased to be necessary, including the vandalism reversions, warnings and block messages that have been automated away by the edit filter. The stats at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm get round part of that by only measuring mainspace edits, so they don't count the warnings and block messages that we've lost. Though they presumably have lost the reversion of vandalism that has now been prevented by the edit filter. That's fine if we're interested in the editing activity considered as a good thing (rather than in how much time is wasted doing X). But measuring article space edits has its own problems - the more article creation has shifted to sandboxes in userspace and especially to on EN wiki to WP space as part of Articles for creation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation the less meaningful it is to measure the different spaces as if their boundaries were immutable. I don't understand. If a page is created in a namespace and moved to ns0, its whole history is counted. If history is not moved, or even worse it is not moved AND the creator is not the author of the content, something stinks. But why would people be doing something which is both wrong and more difficult? I appreciate that some of these things are difficult to measure, but sometimes it is the difficult stuff that is important. Yes but if it's important you need to define your goals or you'll never go anywhere. A case in point being the increasing tendency to revert unsourced edits on EN Wiki. The stats you quote treat all reversions the same, so the rise in simply reverting unsourced edits would appear to be more than masked by a combination of the loss of vandalism reversions to the edit filter, and the inreasing speed and sophistication of the vandalfighting bots. Again, I have no idea how this relates to all the above. Is measuring this specific thing your actual goal? You will never be able to see it in aggregated stats about editing activity, whatever filter or definition you use. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009?
Hi Fae, I hadn't factored in the spam filter,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist that's a separate process that just focusses on sites which we don't want more links to - presumably because people have tried spamlinking them on wikipedia. The edit filter,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_filteroriginally known as the abuse filter is more complex and among other uses doesn't allow certain types of edits.. Both are generally deployed but can be tailored per wiki, I'm assuming that the edit filter is more heavily tuned by language, not least because a rude word in one language will often have innocuous meanings in another. Hence my question here, I am hoping for cross wiki input as this won't just be an EN wiki issue but some others may have very different experiences with them and may even have found a way to measure their effect Hope those links give the info you requested. Regards WSC Message: 2 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:42:22 +0100 From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009? Message-ID: CAH7nnD0tACeBcE77mBZ1JQqar78=w+sb-sd-z-_gkr_32bw...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 28/08/2013, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone come up with a formulae for the ratio between vandalism prevented by the edit filters and lost edits on Wiki? ... Regards Hi WSC, Could you link to where there is a definition of what the edit filters are and what they are supposed to do? I recall having problems including urls like youtube, but I'm not sure if that blacklist is the same thing. If this was something only implemented on the English Wikipedia project, it might be more relevant to raise on wikien-l. Cheers, Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009?
I can't speak for edit volume, but in my spare time I did some research around blocks and found that the proportionate decline in bad-faith related blocks since 2009 is (quite possibly) edit-filter linked.[1] So, whether there's a causal link between the edit decrease and the edit filters or not, they do appear to be doing good work. [1] 0.63 modified R2 value On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:29 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Fae, I hadn't factored in the spam filter,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist that's a separate process that just focusses on sites which we don't want more links to - presumably because people have tried spamlinking them on wikipedia. The edit filter,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_filteroriginally known as the abuse filter is more complex and among other uses doesn't allow certain types of edits.. Both are generally deployed but can be tailored per wiki, I'm assuming that the edit filter is more heavily tuned by language, not least because a rude word in one language will often have innocuous meanings in another. Hence my question here, I am hoping for cross wiki input as this won't just be an EN wiki issue but some others may have very different experiences with them and may even have found a way to measure their effect Hope those links give the info you requested. Regards WSC Message: 2 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:42:22 +0100 From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009? Message-ID: CAH7nnD0tACeBcE77mBZ1JQqar78= w+sb-sd-z-_gkr_32bw...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 28/08/2013, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone come up with a formulae for the ratio between vandalism prevented by the edit filters and lost edits on Wiki? ... Regards Hi WSC, Could you link to where there is a definition of what the edit filters are and what they are supposed to do? I recall having problems including urls like youtube, but I'm not sure if that blacklist is the same thing. If this was something only implemented on the English Wikipedia project, it might be more relevant to raise on wikien-l. Cheers, Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 mailing list 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] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009?
Hi Nemo, Good questions: I'm trying to work out what the underlying real level of editing has been since 2009, not because I think it a good metric, I'm aware that edit count is only a good measure of edit count. But because others are getting concerned about a drop in edit count, and I'd like to try to come up with a less bad metric than raw edit count. As for your critique of the Article For Creation process I don't understand. If a page is created in a namespace and moved to ns0, its whole history is counted. If history is not moved, or even worse it is not moved AND the creator is not the author of the content, something stinks. But why would people be doing something which is both wrong and more difficult? I'm not a fan of that process either, but I'm aware that it does happen on EN wiki, and that it is steering many edits away from mainspace. Regards Jonathan On 28 August 2013 16:45, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: WereSpielChequers, 28/08/2013 17:14: Just because the edit filter is enabled by default doesn't mean that every wiki has people optimising it to find vandalism in their language. This is what the bugzilla link is about. :) I'm trying to work out what the underlying real level of editing has been since 2009. For what purposes? The following sentence seems to be about something else: The problem with measuring either unreverted edits or edits by active users is that the edit filters don't just lose us a large proportion of the vandalism that we used to get, they also lose us a lot of goodfaith edits that have ceased to be necessary, including the vandalism reversions, warnings and block messages that have been automated away by the edit filter. The stats at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htmget round part of that by only measuring mainspace edits, so they don't count the warnings and block messages that we've lost. Though they presumably have lost the reversion of vandalism that has now been prevented by the edit filter. That's fine if we're interested in the editing activity considered as a good thing (rather than in how much time is wasted doing X). But measuring article space edits has its own problems - the more article creation has shifted to sandboxes in userspace and especially to on EN wiki to WP space as part of Articles for creation, https://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_** Articles_for_creationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation the less meaningful it is to measure the different spaces as if their boundaries were immutable. I don't understand. If a page is created in a namespace and moved to ns0, its whole history is counted. If history is not moved, or even worse it is not moved AND the creator is not the author of the content, something stinks. But why would people be doing something which is both wrong and more difficult? I appreciate that some of these things are difficult to measure, but sometimes it is the difficult stuff that is important. Yes but if it's important you need to define your goals or you'll never go anywhere. A case in point being the increasing tendency to revert unsourced edits on EN Wiki. The stats you quote treat all reversions the same, so the rise in simply reverting unsourced edits would appear to be more than masked by a combination of the loss of vandalism reversions to the edit filter, and the inreasing speed and sophistication of the vandalfighting bots. Again, I have no idea how this relates to all the above. Is measuring this specific thing your actual goal? You will never be able to see it in aggregated stats about editing activity, whatever filter or definition you use. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Wikipedia Zero in Google search result
(cross-posted on mobile-l) Update: I have been checking on the indexed link count over the last couple of months, and it has been roughly constant. Upon another check in the past week, it looked like it was time to go ahead with the robots.txt update. Just yesterday, the start of a robots.txt entry for lang. zero.wikipedia.org has also been updated to instruct all robots like Googlebot to not index lang.zero.wikipedia.org. Looks like even more lang.zero.wikipedia.org pages may already be starting to fall out of the index. Thanks for flagging this! Will keep watching the indexed links count as it dwindles. Thanks again. -Adam On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Adam Baso ab...@wikimedia.org wrote: (cross-posted on mobile-l) Okay, looks like the index of zero.wikipedia.org pages in Google has shrunk by some 20 million entries. Nonetheless, a number of really old pages (e.g., going back to 6-May-2013) are still in the Google index with article text. I'll set a reminder to check on the Google index again in 30 days, and hopefully then we can finally put the no-index rules in place at that time. The good news is that many of the pages are now correctly suppressed in natural search as non-canonical pages. In other words, a user would need to go through omitted results or do a site:domain search to see them. -Adam On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Adam Baso ab...@wikimedia.org wrote: Update: We've added an enhancement to Wikipedia Zero so that if a user who isn't on a participating carrier network navigates to a Wikipedia Zero page on language.zero.wikipedia.org, such as http://en.zero.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse_%28band%29 , the user will be presented an option to visit the canonical URL of the article. If clicked, the canonical URL should get the user to the mobile or desktop version of the page, based on device type. We're hoping that by next week the Google index will be refreshed so as to correctly mark the language.zero.wikipedia.org pages as duplicate pages in the omitted section. Upon confirmation of as much, the current plan is to introduce https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/69420/ to prevent indexing of language.zero.wikipedia.org altogether. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Adam Baso ab...@wikimedia.org wrote: All, My mistake. The pages in Google's index that I used for sampling - the ones that have Sorry, ... in their description in Google search results - are cached pages. I assumed incorrectly that those pages were based on recent indexing (e.g., in the past few days). I think we can actually stick to the original plan of Google re-indexing and the search results de-emphasizing the language.zero.wikipedia.orglinks within the next 30 days. I still find it strange that there are language.zero.wikipedia.orglinks that turned up higher in the search engine rankings than their better-established language.wikipedia.org counterparts. But I suppose with fewer competing page elements, especially on long-tail articles with fewer or no direct links to the desktop page, this is maybe not totally unexpected. -Adam On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Adam Baso ab...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello All, We had shelved my patch, patch 64629https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/64629, in hopes that an earlier patch, patch 61809https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/61809(bug 35233 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35233), would resolve the issue naturally as Google re-indexed. But it appears Google has re-indexed and yet the .zero.wikipedia.org URLs are still present in Google's index, instead of the language.wikipedia.org URLs. I have thus resubmitted patch 64629https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/64629 for re-review. We will need to further discuss whether it is appropriate to have Google completely remove .zero.wikipedia.org links from their cache, or if perhaps we need to open a support thread with Google about canonical URLs. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Kul Wadhwa kwad...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Adam Baso (copied on this email) is working on it and a fix is ready. He'll do some testing to make sure it's resolved. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Tomasz Finc tf...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Looping Dan Foy in who's managing the Zero backlog. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:01 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: K. Peachey wrote: Can you please file this in bugzilla https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org? https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48856 MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Kul Wadhwa Head of Mobile Wikimedia Foundation
