Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[MZMcBride]

Tim Starling wrote:
>I can see that is convenient, but I think it should be replaced even in
>that use case. UI convenience, link styling and rel=nofollow can be dealt
>with in other ways.

Re: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map

It's not just convenience. Interwiki links are an easy way to implement
global (across all Wikimedia wikis) templates. They're very simple linker
templates, but templates just the same.

Instead of {{bugzilla|}} for Bugzilla, you use [[bugzilla:]]. Instead of
updating dozens of templates on hundreds of wikis indefinitely, you can
update a centralized interwiki map. The centralized map also helps avoid
conflicts. And if one day one of the targets moves and doesn't leave a
redirect (boo!), we can theoretically update the interwiki map and all of
the links across Wikimedia wikis will continue to work. I believe we use
this feature occasionally.

We could make parser functions such as "{{#bugzilla:}}", but depending on
who you ask, wikitext as a written form is on its way out. I'm not sure
the investment is worth the return.

I suppose it's possible that people are using interwiki markup to disable
the typical link icons, but instead we should be discussing link icons
generally in the user interface. This is pretty far removed from interwiki
links, in my opinion. I do know that people occasionally use redirection
to get around weird link generation behavior when using interwiki markup.
As I recall, space interpretation was the center of that (i.e., query
paths containing "_" v. "+" v. "%20" v. " " &c.).

Regarding rel=nofollow and link trustworthiness: I'm not sure any sane
search engine continues to trust user input these days. I thought lessons
of the past taught developers that people are pretty unscrupulous. :-)

 
MZMcBride



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Bartosz Dziewoński]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:33:52 +0100, Nathan Larson  
wrote:


it's unclear why we would standardize the other namespace
names (Help:, Template:, MediaWiki:, User:, etc.) from one wiki to the
next, but not Project:


The User: namespace differs per-wiki in many languages other than English, to reflect the name of 
the wiki (something akin to "Wikipedia-editor", "Wikisource-editor" etc.).

I don't think standardizing Project: is a good idea, in particular because the name could 
be confused with "Wikiprojects", which on some wikis (also non-English) have a 
separate namespace for them.

--
Matma Rex

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Gabriel Wicke]

On 01/16/2014 07:56 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> I think the interwiki map should be retired. I think broken links
> should be removed from it, and no new wikis should be added.
> 
> Interwiki prefixes, local namespaces and article titles containing a
> plain colon intractably conflict. Every time you add a new interwiki
> prefix, main namespace articles which had that prefix in their title
> become inaccessible and need to be recovered with a maintenance script.
> 
> There is a very good, standardised system for linking to arbitrary
> remote wikis -- URLs. URLs have the advantage of not sharing a
> namespace with local article titles.


The underlying issue here is that we are still using wikitext as our
primary storage format, rather than treating it as the textual user
interface it is. With HTML storage this issue disappears, as interwiki
links are stored with full URLs. When using the wikitext editor,
prefixes are introduced correctly and on demand, so you get the
convenience without the conflicts.

Currently Flow is the only project using HTML storage. We are working on
preparing this for MediaWiki proper though, so in the longer term the
interwiki conflict issue should disappear.

Gabriel

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Nathan Larson]

I forgot to mention, another problem is that you can't even import
Wikipedia: namespace pages to your wiki without changing your interwiki
table to get rid of the wikipedia: interwiki prefix first. The importer
will say, "Page 'Wikipedia:Sandbox' is not imported because its name is
reserved for external linking (interwiki)." As I
notedin bug
60168, it's unclear why we would standardize the other namespace
names (Help:, Template:, MediaWiki:, User:, etc.) from one wiki to the
next, but not Project:
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Nathan Larson]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:00 AM, go moko  wrote:

> >What if filling the interwiki table with predefined links was an
> installation option, possibly with several lists, and void?


Probably won't (and shouldn't) happen, since we're trying to keep the
installer options close to the bare minimum. Changing or clearing the
interwiki table is pretty easy with the right script or special page. The
fact that, when the installer's interwiki list was changed in 2013, it was
accurate to say "This list has obviously not been properly updated for many
years. There are many long-dead sites that are removed in this patch"
suggests that third party wikis are pretty good at ignoring interwiki links
they don't want or need.

I disagree that "collisions are very rare, and none of the alternatives
seem viable or practical". Collisions (or whatever one would call them)
happen fairly often, and the resulting linking
errorscan
be hard to notice because one sees the link is blue and assumes it's
going where one wanted it to.

It wouldn't be such a problem if wikis would name their project namespace
Project: rather than the name of the wiki. Having it named Project: would
be useful when people are importing user or project pages from Wikipedia
(e.g. if they wanted to import userboxes or policy pages) and don't want
the Wikipedia: links to become interwiki links. I would be in favor of
renaming the project namespaces to Project: on Wikimedia wikis; that's how
it is on MediaWiki.org (to avoid a collision with the MediaWiki: namespace)
and it seems to work out okay. I'll probably start setting up my third
party wikis that way too, because I've run into similar problems when
exporting and importing content among them. Perhaps the installer should
warn that it's not recommended to name the meta namespace after the site
name.

Tim's proposal seems pretty elegant but in a few situations will make links
uglier or hide where they point to. E.g. "See also" sections with interwiki
links (like what you see
here)
could become like the "Further reading" section you see
herein
which one has to either put barelinks or make people hover over the
link
to see the URL it goes to.

Interwiki page existence detection probably wouldn't be any more difficult
to implement in the absence of interwiki prefixes. We could still have an
interwiki table, but page existence detection would be triggered by certain
URLs rather than prefixes being used. I'm not sure how interwiki
transclusion would work if we didn't have interwikis; we'd have to come up
with some other way of specifying which wiki we're transcluding from,
unless we're going to use URLs for that too.

In short, I think the key is to come up with something that doesn't break
silently when there's a conflict between an interwiki prefix and namespace.
For that purpose, it would suffice to keep interwiki linking and come up
with a new delimiter. But changing the name of the Project: namespace would
work just as well. Migration of links could work analogously to what's
described in bug 60135
.

TTO, you were saying "I'm not getting a coherent sense of a direction to
take" -- that could be a good thing at this point in the discussion; it
could mean people are still keeping an open mind and wanting to hear more
thoughts and ideas rather than making too hasty of a conclusion. But I
guess it is helpful, when conversations fall silent, for someone to push
for action by asking, "...so, in light of all that, what do you want to
do?" :)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[go moko]

>
> From: Bináris 
>To: Wikimedia developers  
>Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:07 AM
>Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes
> 
>
>2014/1/17 This, that and the other 
>
>> "Nathan Larson"  wrote in message news:CAF-JeUxsM-jQ85nij+OALA=
>> rlolnppmhx7yhka1_hiz7m0a...@mail.gmail.com...
>>
>> Nice qouting. :-)
>
>>
>>
>> I can't say I care about people reading through the interwiki list. It's
>> just that with the one interwiki map, we are projecting "our" internal
>> interwikis, like strategy:, foundation:, sulutil:, wmch: onto external
>> MediaWiki installations.  No-one needs these prefixes except WMF wikis, and
>> having these in the global map makes MediaWiki look too WMF-centric.
>
>
>One central intwerwiki map with an extra flag? May be branched for WMF and
>general as well as maintined together.
>
>
>What if filling the interwiki table with predefined links was an installation 
>option, possibly with several lists, and void?
>
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Bináris]

2014/1/17 This, that and the other 

> "Nathan Larson"  wrote in message news:CAF-JeUxsM-jQ85nij+OALA=
> rlolnppmhx7yhka1_hiz7m0a...@mail.gmail.com...
>
> Nice qouting. :-)

>
>
> I can't say I care about people reading through the interwiki list. It's
> just that with the one interwiki map, we are projecting "our" internal
> interwikis, like strategy:, foundation:, sulutil:, wmch: onto external
> MediaWiki installations.  No-one needs these prefixes except WMF wikis, and
> having these in the global map makes MediaWiki look too WMF-centric.


One central intwerwiki map with an extra flag? May be branched for WMF and
general as well as maintined together.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[This, that and the other]

Nathan is right that I am contradicting myself a bit.  It's true that if you don't 
look at the interwiki map, you'll never know what's there - you'll never know that 
WMF is stuffing the default map full of its own junk.  What I really meant to say is 
that external users will feel short-changed that we get to add "our" internal 
interwikis to the global map, yet they aren't allowed to add their internal wikis 
(equivalent to our strategy, outreach, etc) to the global map, for any given reason.


I'm not getting a coherent sense of a direction to take.  Do we split the existing 
interwiki map into a local and a global map (as I originally proposed)?  Do we start 
from scratch, rewriting the interwiki map from a blank slate, or do we start with 
what we've got?  Do we flood external MW users with a ton of new prefixes, or do we 
ship a mostly empty table to new MW installations?  Do we scale right back and limit 
ourselves to a small core of interwiki prefixes?  Do we take up Tim's idea and toss 
interwikis altogether? 




___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[This, that and the other]

"Tim Starling"  wrote in message news:lba9ld$8pj$1...@ger.gmane.org...


I think the interwiki map should be retired. I think broken links
should be removed from it, and no new wikis should be added.

Interwiki prefixes, local namespaces and article titles containing a
plain colon intractably conflict. Every time you add a new interwiki
prefix, main namespace articles which had that prefix in their title
become inaccessible and need to be recovered with a maintenance script.

There is a very good, standardised system for linking to arbitrary
remote wikis -- URLs. URLs have the advantage of not sharing a
namespace with local article titles.

Even the introduction of new WMF-to-WMF interwiki prefixes has caused
the breakage of large numbers of article titles. I can see that is
convenient, but I think it should be replaced even in that use case.
UI convenience, link styling and rel=nofollow can be dealt with in
other ways.

-- Tim Starling


The one main advantage of interwiki mapping is the convenience you mention.  They 
save a great amount of unnecessary typing and remembering of URLs.  Whenever we go 
to any WMF wiki, we can simply type [[gerrit:12345]] and know that the link will 
point where we want it to.


Some possible alternatives to our current system would include:
* to make people manually type out URLs everywhere (silly)
* to use cross-wiki linking templates instead of interwikis.  This has its own set 
of problems: cross-wiki transclusion is another area in sore need of attention (see 
bug 4547); we need to decide which wikis get their own linking templates; how do we 
deal with collisions between local and global (cross-wiki) templates?  etc.  To me, 
it doesn't seem worth the effort.
* to introduce a new syntax for interwiki links that does not collide with internal 
links (too ambitious?)


I personally favour keeping interwikis as we know them, as collisions are very rare, 
and none of the alternatives seem viable or practical.  Maybe the advent of 
interactive editing systems like VisualEditor and Flow will make them obsolete, but 
until then, editors need the convenience and flexibility that they offer when 
writing wikitext.


It seems as though your proposal, Tim, relates to the WMF cluster.  I'd be 
interested to know what your thoughts are with relation to the interwiki table in 
external MediaWiki installations.


TTO
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l 




___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Nathan Larson]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Tim Starling wrote:

> I think the interwiki map should be retired. I think broken links
> should be removed from it, and no new wikis should be added.
>
> Interwiki prefixes, local namespaces and article titles containing a
> plain colon intractably conflict. Every time you add a new interwiki
> prefix, main namespace articles which had that prefix in their title
> become inaccessible and need to be recovered with a maintenance script.
>
> There is a very good, standardised system for linking to arbitrary
> remote wikis -- URLs. URLs have the advantage of not sharing a
> namespace with local article titles.
>
> Even the introduction of new WMF-to-WMF interwiki prefixes has caused
> the breakage of large numbers of article titles. I can see that is
> convenient, but I think it should be replaced even in that use case.
> UI convenience, link styling and rel=nofollow can be dealt with in
> other ways.
>

These are some good points. I've run into a problem many times when
importing pages (e.g. templates and/or their documentation) from Wikipedia,
that pages like [[Wikipedia:Signatures]] become interwiki links to
Wikipedia mainspace rather than redlinks. Also, usually I end up accessing
interwiki prefixes through templates like
Template:wanyway. It would
be a simple matter to make those templates generate URLs
rather than interwiki links. The only other way to prevent these conflicts
from happening would be to use a different delimiter besides a single
colon; but what would that replacement be?

Before retiring the interwiki map, we could run a bot to edit all the pages
that use interwiki links, and convert the interwiki links to template uses.
A template would have the same advantage as an interwiki link in making it
easy to change the URLs if the site were to switch domains or change its
URL scheme.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Tim Starling]

On 16/01/14 22:06, This, that and the other wrote:
> "Most well-established and active wikis should have interwiki
> prefixes, regardless of whether or not they are using MediaWiki
> software.
> Sites that are not wikis may be acceptable in some cases,
> particularly if they are very commonly linked to (e.g. Google,
> OEIS)."

I think the interwiki map should be retired. I think broken links
should be removed from it, and no new wikis should be added.

Interwiki prefixes, local namespaces and article titles containing a
plain colon intractably conflict. Every time you add a new interwiki
prefix, main namespace articles which had that prefix in their title
become inaccessible and need to be recovered with a maintenance script.

There is a very good, standardised system for linking to arbitrary
remote wikis -- URLs. URLs have the advantage of not sharing a
namespace with local article titles.

Even the introduction of new WMF-to-WMF interwiki prefixes has caused
the breakage of large numbers of article titles. I can see that is
convenient, but I think it should be replaced even in that use case.
UI convenience, link styling and rel=nofollow can be dealt with in
other ways.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Arcane 21]

If I might weigh in here, I don't see the harm in including all the WMF wikis 
onto the interwiki map.

MediaWiki is intensely related to the WMF, so those links make logical sense 
and it does no harm to include them in my opinion.

> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:40:37 -0500
> From: nathanlarson3...@gmail.com
> To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes
> 
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, This, that and the other <
> at.li...@live.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > I can't say I care about people reading through the interwiki list. It's
> > just that with the one interwiki map, we are projecting "our" internal
> > interwikis, like strategy:, foundation:, sulutil:, wmch: onto external
> > MediaWiki installations.  No-one needs these prefixes except WMF wikis, and
> > having these in the global map makes MediaWiki look too WMF-centric.
> >
> 
> It's a WMF-centric wikisphere, though. Even the name of the software
> reflects its connection to Wikimedia. If we're going to have a
> super-inclusive interwiki list, then most of those Wikimedia interwikis
> will fit right in, because they meet the criteria of having non-spammy
> recent changes and significant content in AllPages. If you're saying that
> having them around makes MediaWiki "look" too WMF-centric, it sounds like
> you are concerned about people reading through the interwiki list and
> getting a certain impression, because how else would they even know about
> the presence of those interwiki prefixes in the global map?
> 
> 
> > I don't see the need for instruction creep here.  I'm for an inclusive
> > interwiki map.  Inactive wikis (e.g. RecentChanges shows only sporadic
> > non-spam edits) and non-established wikis (e.g. AllPages shows little
> > content) should be excluded.  So far, there have been no issues with using
> > subjective criteria at meta:Talk:Interwiki map.
> 
> 
> I dunno about that. We have urbandict: but not dramatica: both of which are
> unreliable sources, but likely to be used on third-party wikis (at least
> the ones I edit). We have wikichristian:
> (~4,000<http://www.wikichristian.org/index.php?title=Special:Statistics>content
> pages) but not rationalwiki: (
> ~6,000 <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Statistics> content pages).
> The latter was 
> rejected<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInterwiki_map&diff=4573672&oldid=4572621>awhile
> ago. Application of the subjective criteria seems to be hit-or-miss.
> 
> If we're going to have a hyper-inclusionist system of canonical interwiki
> prefixes <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Canonical_interwiki_prefixes>, we
> might want to use WikiApiary and/or WikiIndex rather than MediaWiki.org as
> the venue. These wikis that already have a page for every wiki could add
> another field for interwiki prefix to those templates and manage the
> interwiki prefixes by editing pages. Thingles
> said<https://wikiapiary.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThingles&diff=409395&oldid=408940>he'd
> be interested in WikiApiary's getting involved. The only downside is
> that WikiApiary doesn't have non-MediaWiki wikis. It
> sounded<http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Leucosticte&diff=prev&oldid=144256>as
> though Mark Dilley might be interested in WikiIndex's playing some
> role
> in this too. But even WikiIndex has the problem of only containing wikis;
> the table will have to have other websites as well.
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
  
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Nathan Larson]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, This, that and the other <
at.li...@live.com.au> wrote:

> I can't say I care about people reading through the interwiki list. It's
> just that with the one interwiki map, we are projecting "our" internal
> interwikis, like strategy:, foundation:, sulutil:, wmch: onto external
> MediaWiki installations.  No-one needs these prefixes except WMF wikis, and
> having these in the global map makes MediaWiki look too WMF-centric.
>

It's a WMF-centric wikisphere, though. Even the name of the software
reflects its connection to Wikimedia. If we're going to have a
super-inclusive interwiki list, then most of those Wikimedia interwikis
will fit right in, because they meet the criteria of having non-spammy
recent changes and significant content in AllPages. If you're saying that
having them around makes MediaWiki "look" too WMF-centric, it sounds like
you are concerned about people reading through the interwiki list and
getting a certain impression, because how else would they even know about
the presence of those interwiki prefixes in the global map?


> I don't see the need for instruction creep here.  I'm for an inclusive
> interwiki map.  Inactive wikis (e.g. RecentChanges shows only sporadic
> non-spam edits) and non-established wikis (e.g. AllPages shows little
> content) should be excluded.  So far, there have been no issues with using
> subjective criteria at meta:Talk:Interwiki map.


I dunno about that. We have urbandict: but not dramatica: both of which are
unreliable sources, but likely to be used on third-party wikis (at least
the ones I edit). We have wikichristian:
(~4,000content
pages) but not rationalwiki: (
~6,000  content pages).
The latter was 
rejectedawhile
ago. Application of the subjective criteria seems to be hit-or-miss.

If we're going to have a hyper-inclusionist system of canonical interwiki
prefixes , we
might want to use WikiApiary and/or WikiIndex rather than MediaWiki.org as
the venue. These wikis that already have a page for every wiki could add
another field for interwiki prefix to those templates and manage the
interwiki prefixes by editing pages. Thingles
saidhe'd
be interested in WikiApiary's getting involved. The only downside is
that WikiApiary doesn't have non-MediaWiki wikis. It
soundedas
though Mark Dilley might be interested in WikiIndex's playing some
role
in this too. But even WikiIndex has the problem of only containing wikis;
the table will have to have other websites as well.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[This, that and the other]

"Nathan Larson"  wrote in message 
news:CAF-JeUxsM-jQ85nij+OALA=rlolnppmhx7yhka1_hiz7m0a...@mail.gmail.com...



Why is it worth the trouble of maintaining two separate lists? Do the
Wikimedia-specific interwiki prefixes get in people's way, e.g. when
they're reading through the interwiki list and encounter what is, to 
them,

useless clutter?


I can't say I care about people reading through the interwiki list. 
It's just that with the one interwiki map, we are projecting "our" 
internal interwikis, like strategy:, foundation:, sulutil:, wmch: onto 
external MediaWiki installations.  No-one needs these prefixes except 
WMF wikis, and having these in the global map makes MediaWiki look too 
WMF-centric.



Sometimes I do use those
Wikimedia-specific prefixes on third-party wikis (e.g. if I'm talking 
about

MediaWiki development issues)


This is a good argument to include gerrit:, rev:, mediazilla: etc. on 
the global interwiki map.



and they might also end up getting used if
people import content from Wikimedia wikis.


They're mainly used in meta-discussions, so I doubt this is a concern.

People will say we should keep those interwikis for historical 
reasons. So,
I think we should have a bot ready to go through the various wikis and 
make
edits converting those interwiki links to regular links. We should 
make
this tool available to the third-party wikis too. Perhaps it could be 
a

maintenance script.


Amen to this.  https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60135

Can we come up with numerical cutoffs for what count as 
"well-established",
"active", and "very commonly linked to", so that people know what to 
expect
before they put a proposal forth, or will it be like notability 
debates,
and come down to people's individual opinions of what should count as 
"very

commonly linked to" (as well as a certain amount of
ILIKEITand
IDONTLIKEIT, even if users deny that's the basis for their decision)?
We might get the help of WikiIndex and (especially) WikiApiary in 
getting

the necessary statistics.


I don't see the need for instruction creep here.  I'm for an inclusive 
interwiki map.  Inactive wikis (e.g. RecentChanges shows only sporadic 
non-spam edits) and non-established wikis (e.g. AllPages shows little 
content) should be excluded.  So far, there have been no issues with 
using subjective criteria at meta:Talk:Interwiki map.


It's okay, it's a complicated subject with a lot of tricky 
implementation
decisions that need to be made (which is probably part of why it's 
been

neglected). Thanks for taking the time to do a thorough analysis.


And thank you, Nathan, for your contributions.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l 




___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[Nathan Larson]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:53 AM, This, that and the other <
at.li...@live.com.au> wrote:

> 1. Split the existing interwiki map on Meta [2] into a "global interwiki
> map",
>located on MediaWiki.org (draft at [3]), and a "WMF-specific interwiki
> map"
>on Meta (draft at [4]).  Wikimedia-specific interwiki prefixes, like
>bugzilla:, gerrit:, and irc: would be located in the map on Meta,
> whereas
>general-purpose interwikis, like orthodoxwiki: and wikisource: would go
> to
>the "global map" at MediaWiki.org.
>

Why is it worth the trouble of maintaining two separate lists? Do the
Wikimedia-specific interwiki prefixes get in people's way, e.g. when
they're reading through the interwiki list and encounter what is, to them,
useless clutter? As the list starts getting longer (e.g. hundreds,
thousands or tens of thousands of prefixes), people will probably do a Find
on the list rather than scrolling through, so it may not matter much if
there's that little bit of extra clutter. Sometimes I do use those
Wikimedia-specific prefixes on third-party wikis (e.g. if I'm talking about
MediaWiki development issues), and they might also end up getting used if
people import content from Wikimedia wikis.


> * Define a proper scope for the interwiki map.  At the moment it is a bit
>   unclear what should and shouldn't be there.  The fact that we currently
> have
>   a Linux users' group from New Zealand and someone's personal blog on the
> map
>   suggests the scope of the map have not been well thought out over the
> years.
>   My suggested criterion at [3] is:
>

People will say we should keep those interwikis for historical reasons. So,
I think we should have a bot ready to go through the various wikis and make
edits converting those interwiki links to regular links. We should make
this tool available to the third-party wikis too. Perhaps it could be a
maintenance script.


> "Most well-established and active wikis should have interwiki
> prefixes, regardless of whether or not they are using MediaWiki
> software.
> Sites that are not wikis may be acceptable in some cases,
> particularly if they are very commonly linked to (e.g. Google,
> OEIS)."
>

Can we come up with numerical cutoffs for what count as "well-established",
"active", and "very commonly linked to", so that people know what to expect
before they put a proposal forth, or will it be like notability debates,
and come down to people's individual opinions of what should count as "very
commonly linked to" (as well as a certain amount of
ILIKEITand
IDONTLIKEIT, even if users deny that's the basis for their decision)?
We might get the help of WikiIndex and (especially) WikiApiary in getting
the necessary statistics.


> ** Many of the links are long dead. (snip)
>
** We could add API URLs to fill the iw_api column in the database
> (currently
>empty by default).
>

Those two should be uncontroversial.


> Sorry for the long message, but I really think this topic has been
> neglected
> for such a long time.
>

It's okay, it's a complicated subject with a lot of tricky implementation
decisions that need to be made (which is probably part of why it's been
neglected). Thanks for taking the time to do a thorough analysis.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[hoo]

You might want to have a look at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/New_sites_system .
That's more future proof than using the current interwiki system IMO.
Also we already use a subset of that for Wikidata.

Cheers,

Marius


On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 22:06 +1100, This, that and the other wrote:
> Sorry about the borked line wrapping in the previous message - I'm
> resending it so you can read it properly!
> 
> 
> 
> This is a proposal to try and bring order to the messy area of interwiki
> linking and interwiki prefixes, particularly for non-WMF users of
> MediaWiki.
> 
> At the moment, anyone who installs MediaWiki gets a default interwiki
> table that is hopelessly out of date.  Some of the URLs listed there
> have seemingly been broken for 7 years [1].  Meanwhile, WMF wikis have
> access to a nice, updated interwiki map, stored on Meta, that is
> difficult for anyone else to use.  Clearly something needs to be done.
> 
> What I propose we do to improve the situation is along the lines of
> bug 58369:
> 
> 1. Split the existing interwiki map on Meta [2] into a "global
> interwiki map", located on MediaWiki.org (draft at [3]), and a
> "WMF-specific interwiki map" on Meta (draft at [4]).
> Wikimedia-specific interwiki prefixes, like bugzilla:, gerrit:, and
> irc: would be located in the map on Meta, whereas general-purpose
> interwikis, like orthodoxwiki: and wikisource: would go to the
> "global map" at MediaWiki.org.
> 
> 2. Create a bot, similar to l10n-bot, that periodically updates the
> default interwiki data in mediawiki/core based on the contents of
> the global map. (Right now, the default map is duplicated in two
> different formats [5] [6]which is quite messy.)
> 
> 3. Write a version of the rebuildInterwiki.php maintenance script [7]
> that can be bundled with MediaWiki, and which can be run by server
> admins to pull in new entries to their interwiki table from the
> global map.
> 
> This way, fresh installations of MediaWiki get a set of current, useful
> interwiki prefixes, and they have the ability to pull in updates as
> required.  It also has the benefit of separating out the WMF-specific
> stuff from the global MediaWiki logic, which is a win for external users
> of MW.
> 
> Two other things it would be nice to do:
> 
> * Define a proper scope for the interwiki map.  At the moment it is a
>bit unclear what should and shouldn't be there.  The fact that we
>currently have a Linux users' group from New Zealand and someone's
>personal blog on the map suggests the scope of the map have not been
>well thought out over the years.
>My suggested criterion at [3] is:
> 
>  "Most well-established and active wikis should have interwiki
>  prefixes, regardless of whether or not they are using MediaWiki
>  software.
>  Sites that are not wikis may be acceptable in some cases,
>  particularly if they are very commonly linked to (e.g. Google,
>  OEIS)."
> 
> * Take this opportunity to CLEAN UP the global interwiki map!
> ** Many of the links are long dead.
> ** Many new wikis have sprung up in the last few years that deserve to
> be added.
> ** Broken prefixes can be moved to the WMF-specific map so existing
> links on WMF sites can be cleaned up and dealt with appropriately.
> ** We could add API URLs to fill the iw_api column in the database
> (currently empty by default).
> 
> I'm interested to hear your thoughts on these ideas.
> 
> Sorry for the long message, but I really think this topic has been
> neglected for such a long time.
> 
> TTO
> 
> 
> 
> PS. I am aware of an RFC on MediaWiki.org relating to this, but I can't
> see that gaining traction any time soon.  This proposal would be a more
> light-weight way of dealing with the problem at hand.
> 
> [1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84303/
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
> [3] 
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:This,_that_and_the_other/Interwiki_map
> [4] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:This,_that_and_the_other/Local_interwiki_map
> [5] 
> http://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/master/maintenance%2Finterwiki.list
> [6] 
> http://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/master/maintenance%2Finterwiki.sql
> [7] 
> https://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FWikimediaMaintenance.git/master/rebuildInterwiki.php
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[This, that and the other]

Sorry about the borked line wrapping in the previous message - I'm
resending it so you can read it properly!



This is a proposal to try and bring order to the messy area of interwiki
linking and interwiki prefixes, particularly for non-WMF users of
MediaWiki.

At the moment, anyone who installs MediaWiki gets a default interwiki
table that is hopelessly out of date.  Some of the URLs listed there
have seemingly been broken for 7 years [1].  Meanwhile, WMF wikis have
access to a nice, updated interwiki map, stored on Meta, that is
difficult for anyone else to use.  Clearly something needs to be done.

What I propose we do to improve the situation is along the lines of
bug 58369:

1. Split the existing interwiki map on Meta [2] into a "global
   interwiki map", located on MediaWiki.org (draft at [3]), and a
   "WMF-specific interwiki map" on Meta (draft at [4]).
   Wikimedia-specific interwiki prefixes, like bugzilla:, gerrit:, and
   irc: would be located in the map on Meta, whereas general-purpose
   interwikis, like orthodoxwiki: and wikisource: would go to the
   "global map" at MediaWiki.org.

2. Create a bot, similar to l10n-bot, that periodically updates the
   default interwiki data in mediawiki/core based on the contents of
   the global map. (Right now, the default map is duplicated in two
   different formats [5] [6]which is quite messy.)

3. Write a version of the rebuildInterwiki.php maintenance script [7]
   that can be bundled with MediaWiki, and which can be run by server
   admins to pull in new entries to their interwiki table from the
   global map.

This way, fresh installations of MediaWiki get a set of current, useful
interwiki prefixes, and they have the ability to pull in updates as
required.  It also has the benefit of separating out the WMF-specific
stuff from the global MediaWiki logic, which is a win for external users
of MW.

Two other things it would be nice to do:

* Define a proper scope for the interwiki map.  At the moment it is a
  bit unclear what should and shouldn't be there.  The fact that we
  currently have a Linux users' group from New Zealand and someone's
  personal blog on the map suggests the scope of the map have not been
  well thought out over the years.
  My suggested criterion at [3] is:

"Most well-established and active wikis should have interwiki
prefixes, regardless of whether or not they are using MediaWiki
software.
Sites that are not wikis may be acceptable in some cases,
particularly if they are very commonly linked to (e.g. Google,
OEIS)."

* Take this opportunity to CLEAN UP the global interwiki map!
** Many of the links are long dead.
** Many new wikis have sprung up in the last few years that deserve to
   be added.
** Broken prefixes can be moved to the WMF-specific map so existing
   links on WMF sites can be cleaned up and dealt with appropriately.
** We could add API URLs to fill the iw_api column in the database
   (currently empty by default).

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on these ideas.

Sorry for the long message, but I really think this topic has been
neglected for such a long time.

TTO



PS. I am aware of an RFC on MediaWiki.org relating to this, but I can't
see that gaining traction any time soon.  This proposal would be a more
light-weight way of dealing with the problem at hand.

[1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84303/
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
[3] 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:This,_that_and_the_other/Interwiki_map
[4] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:This,_that_and_the_other/Local_interwiki_map
[5] 
http://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/master/maintenance%2Finterwiki.list
[6] 
http://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/master/maintenance%2Finterwiki.sql
[7] 
https://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FWikimediaMaintenance.git/master/rebuildInterwiki.php 




___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Wikitech-l] Revamping interwiki prefixes

[This, that and the other]

Long message coming up... please be brave and take a look :)

This is a proposal to try and bring order to the messy area of interwiki 
linking

and interwiki prefixes, particularly for non-WMF users of MediaWiki.

At the moment, anyone who installs MediaWiki gets a default interwiki table 
that
is hopelessly out of date.  Some of the URLs listed there have seemingly 
been

broken for 7 years [1].  Meanwhile, WMF wikis have access to a nice, updated
interwiki map, stored on Meta, that is difficult for anyone else to use.
Clearly something needs to be done to sort this out.

What I propose we do to improve the situation is along the lines of bug 
58369:


1. Split the existing interwiki map on Meta [2] into a "global interwiki 
map",
   located on MediaWiki.org (draft at [3]), and a "WMF-specific interwiki 
map"

   on Meta (draft at [4]).  Wikimedia-specific interwiki prefixes, like
   bugzilla:, gerrit:, and irc: would be located in the map on Meta, 
whereas
   general-purpose interwikis, like orthodoxwiki: and wikisource: would go 
to

   the "global map" at MediaWiki.org.

2. Create a bot, similar to l10n-bot, that periodically updates the default
   interwiki data in mediawiki/core based on the contents of the global 
map.
   (Right now, the default map is duplicated in two different formats [5] 
[6]

   which is quite messy.)

3. Write a version of the rebuildInterwiki.php maintenance script [7] that 
can
   be bundled with MediaWiki, and which can be run by server admins to pull 
in

   new entries to their interwiki table from the global map.

This way, fresh installations of MediaWiki get a set of current, useful
interwiki prefixes, and they have the ability to pull in updates as 
required.
It also has the benefit of separating out the WMF-specific stuff from the 
global

MediaWiki logic, which is a win for external users of MW.

Two other things it would be nice to do:

* Define a proper scope for the interwiki map.  At the moment it is a bit
  unclear what should and shouldn't be there.  The fact that we currently 
have
  a Linux users' group from New Zealand and someone's personal blog on the 
map
  suggests the scope of the map have not been well thought out over the 
years.

  My suggested criterion at [3] is:

"Most well-established and active wikis should have interwiki
prefixes, regardless of whether or not they are using MediaWiki
software.
Sites that are not wikis may be acceptable in some cases,
particularly if they are very commonly linked to (e.g. Google,
OEIS)."

* Take this opportunity to CLEAN UP the global interwiki map!
** Many of the links are long dead.
** Many new wikis have sprung up in the last few years that deserve to be
   added.
** Broken prefixes can be moved to the WMF-specific map so existing links on
   WMF sites can be cleaned up and dealt with appropriately.
** We could add API URLs to fill the iw_api column in the database 
(currently

   empty by default).

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on these ideas.

Sorry for the long message, but I really think this topic has been neglected
for such a long time.

TTO



PS. I am aware of an RFC on MediaWiki.org relating to this, but I can't see 
that
gaining traction any time soon.  This proposal would be a more light-weight 
way

of dealing with the problem at hand.

[1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84303/
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
[3] 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:This,_that_and_the_other/Interwiki_map
[4] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:This,_that_and_the_other/Local_interwiki_map
[5] 
http://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/master/maintenance%2Finterwiki.list
[6] 
http://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/master/maintenance%2Finterwiki.sql
[7] 
https://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FWikimediaMaintenance.git/master/rebuildInterwiki.php 




___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l