> Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>> First, let's make one thing clear: the reader doesn't exist; it's just a
>> rhetorical trick, and a very dangerous one. For more:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_of_the_reader
=
While I think we may have broadly similar views of the WikiWorld,
MZMcBride, 24/08/2014 23:57:
> Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>> First, let's make one thing clear: the reader doesn't exist; it's just a
>> rhetorical trick, and a very dangerous one. For more:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_of_the_reader
>
> This essay looks fascinating. I hope to rea
On 8/25/14, 3:06 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
As a metric, pageviews are probably not very meaningful. One way we can
observe whether we're fulfilling our mission is to see how ubiquitous
our content has become. An even better metric might be the quality of the
articles we have. Anecdotal evidence sugges
Yes, we could look at Google's infoboxes as doing us a favor because they
decrease the load on our servers. We would need to account for those views
in some way if we are interested in quantifying success in the sense of
total views of our content regardless of where it is reproduced.
However, I t
Risker wrote:
>Given the mission is sharing information, I'd suggest that if we have a
>95% drop in readership, we're failing the mission. Donations are only a
>means to an end.
I think this assumes a direct correlation between pageviews and sharing
information and I'm not sure such a direct corr
Given the mission is sharing information, I'd suggest that if we have a 95%
drop in readership, we're failing the mission. Donations are only a means
to an end.
Risker/Anne
On 24 August 2014 22:57, MZMcBride wrote:
> Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> >First, let's make one thing clear: the reader
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>First, let's make one thing clear: the reader doesn't exist; it's just a
>rhetorical trick, and a very dangerous one. For more:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_of_the_reader
This essay looks fascinating. I hope to read it soon.
>Page views, however brute a
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:29 AM, John Mark Vandenberg
wrote:
>
>
> *But*, that only works on the normal website. On the mobile website,
> I cant figure out how to disable the Media Viewer. To check I wasnt
> missing something, I asked someone at the Wikimedia Indonesia office
> (https://en.wikip
2014-08-21 15:03 GMT+03:00 Andy Mabbett :
> On 21 August 2014 10:31, Strainu wrote:
>> and significantly alter some infoboxes because "it doesn't
>> look good".
>
> I'd not noticed this; can you give examples, please?
It seems this is not the case at en.wp, but take a look at how
infoboxes (and e
I was talking about navboxes, not infoboxes.
On 21 August 2014 19:04, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Or, have them filled from Wikidata. Then, {{Infobox}} would be all the
> wikitext you need. This could also help to "abstract" infoboxes to load a
> placeholder/hint on mobile, then loading the box on req
On 21 Aug 2014, at 13:03, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 21 August 2014 10:31, Strainu wrote:
>> the mobile
>> website arbitrarily skips some elements visible on desktop, such as
>> navboxes
>
> I've noticed this; and other deficiencies (such as no "did you know"
> on main page, not even as a link t
On 21.08.2014 21:17, Steven Walling wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Magnus Manske
wrote:
Or, have them filled from Wikidata. Then, {{Infobox}} would be all
the
wikitext you need. This could also help to "abstract" infoboxes to
load a
placeholder/hint on mobile, then loading the box
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Or, have them filled from Wikidata. Then, {{Infobox}} would be all the
> wikitext you need. This could also help to "abstract" infoboxes to load a
> placeholder/hint on mobile, then loading the box on request (click).
>
> Well, one can drea
Or, have them filled from Wikidata. Then, {{Infobox}} would be all the
wikitext you need. This could also help to "abstract" infoboxes to load a
placeholder/hint on mobile, then loading the box on request (click).
Well, one can dream...
Magnus
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Mabbett
wrot
On 21 August 2014 17:08, Isarra Yos wrote:
> Man, I forgot how over the top some projects get
> with their navigation templates.
Perhaps the answer is to refactor them as separate pages to which
mobile (and even desktop) pages can use a single link?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigson
On 21/08/14 13:24, Risker wrote:
On 21 August 2014 09:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
For me the conclusion would be not that we should drop them altogether in
the mobile version (most of them are useful navigation means after all) but
that the mobile version should be improved to parse them a
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M.
Blanter
Sent: 21 August 2014 03:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reader, who doesn't exist
On 21.08.2014 15:24, Risker wrote:
> On 21 August 2014 09:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
>&
On 21.08.2014 15:24, Risker wrote:
On 21 August 2014 09:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On 21.08.2014 14:26, Risker wrote:
On 21 August 2014 05:31, Strainu wrote:
...
Many of these templates have over 100 links in them; a surprisingly
large
number have "subtemplates" built into them
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 21 August 2014 05:31, Strainu wrote:
>
>> 2014-08-21 9:30 GMT+03:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>> It would *seem* that every user
>> > converted to the mobile site is a step towards extinction of the wiki.
>>
>>
>> That is an excellent point Frederi
On 21 August 2014 09:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On 21.08.2014 14:26, Risker wrote:
>
>> On 21 August 2014 05:31, Strainu wrote:
>>
>> ...
>
>>
>> I went to look at some of those same articles using my smartphone with the
>> "desktop" option turned on. Many of them timed out without fully
On 21.08.2014 14:26, Risker wrote:
On 21 August 2014 05:31, Strainu wrote:
...
I went to look at some of those same articles using my smartphone with
the
"desktop" option turned on. Many of them timed out without fully
loading;
others took several minutes. There was a very, very noticeabl
Editing via the mobile view is made more painful by the use of navboxes, tables
and complex templates of any kind. Even the {{cite}} template can occupy
several lines of the display on a mobile device making it hard to discern the
text. Maybe Wikidata will solve some of this by shifting the cre
On 21 August 2014 05:31, Strainu wrote:
> 2014-08-21 9:30 GMT+03:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> It would *seem* that every user
> > converted to the mobile site is a step towards extinction of the wiki.
>
>
> That is an excellent point Frederico. In addition to the inherent
> difficulties of editing
On 21 August 2014 10:31, Strainu wrote:
> the mobile
> website arbitrarily skips some elements visible on desktop, such as
> navboxes
I've noticed this; and other deficiencies (such as no "did you know"
on main page, not even as a link to a subpage).
> and significantly alter some infoboxes beca
2014-08-21 9:30 GMT+03:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
It would *seem* that every user
> converted to the mobile site is a step towards extinction of the wiki.
That is an excellent point Frederico. In addition to the inherent
difficulties of editing on small screen, especially large articles and
the "w
MZMcBride, I agree with you, but let me split out one thing:
On 20 August 2014 04:09, MZMcBride wrote:
> the one complaint I _never_ hear is that
> Wikipedia has a readership problem.
Then you'll hear it from me.
First, let's make one thing clear: the reader doesn't exist; it's just a
rhetorical
26 matches
Mail list logo
