On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 AM, C. Scott Ananian <canan...@wikimedia.org>

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov <abar...@wikimedia.org> 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 <salvador1...@gmail.com>
> 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.

    Asaf Bartov
    Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to