Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[Adam Baso]

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  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 AM, C. Scott Ananian 
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> 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 
> > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[Asaf Bartov]

Hi.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 AM, C. Scott Ananian 
wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian  >
> > 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 
> 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 

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[Samuel Klein]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian 
>
> > 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian 
> 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  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[Salvador A]

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 
escribió:

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian  >
> 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 
>
> 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,
>  ?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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[Asaf Bartov]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian 
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 

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[C. Scott Ananian]

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[Praveena Maharaj]

REMINDER: This meeting starts in 30 minutes.


On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Praveena Maharaj 
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 Q&A 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,