Hoi,
I read the blogpost and it utterly misses the point. The point is that this
is NOT about English Wikipedia, for them another approach will work better.
At the same time when you read my blogpost, you will find that the elephant
in the room is that we consider articles to be synonymous with subjects.
They are not. We do not have an aggregated number of most popular subjects,
subjects on all Wikipedias. When we did, we would know what the world reads
and not what is served by a single Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia.

The biggest benefit is that it will provide us with a list with less of an
Anglo-American bias. One subset of this list will be what the world reads
and is not available on English. Subjects that feature high in the world
indicate a particular kind of notability. It will be really interesting to
see how these subjects will be appreciated by the public and the "wiki
gnomes". Finding authors can be done in a similar way as the "gender bias"
approach.

Another thing where the blogpost misses the point is that is concentrates
on English Wikipedia. The only line left for the small Wikipedias is
that the gem-to-dung ratio may differ. As English has never been my
objective of this approach, it disqualifies the results. By posting this
blogpost, you make it plain you have not read or understood what it is that
I propose in my blogpost [1].

First I want the search extension by Magnus active on every Wikipedia. This
will expose all subjects known to us as a result, not just the articles on
a Wikipedia. It is save to log such an interest. All we want is a
timestamp, the language and the Qid. This is exactly what we do for
articlesl so there is no privacy issue here. I also want to invite people
to add labels and false friends in their language.

For any Wikipedia, the approach what is the most read article that you do
not have, is a valid approach to propose the writing of a new article. Some
will use this list, most will not and again, the English Wikignomes do not
know the language elsewhere.

We know what articles are receiving what traffic. It is just a data
question for us to know what new articles received what traffic in a full
month. Exposing this, highlighting their success is a powerful way to
provide recognition.

In conclusion, there is a very strong bias for English Wikipedia in the
attention given to the exclusion of others. English is less than fifty
percent of our traffic. It gets more than eighty percent of attention. As
you read in the comments of your blogpost, I am happy to collaborate but so
far it has not fit your agenda.
Thanks,
      GerardM



[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/sharing-in-sum-of-all-knowledge-from.html

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 18:28, Ed Erhart <eerh...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> Trey authored a Wikimedia blog post on this as well:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/12/12/failed-queries-fear-of-missing-out/
>
> --Ed
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) <djgw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The topic of zero-result search queries comes up from time to time. The
> > logic is generally this: if we can see the top queries that got no
> results,
> > then we can figure out what users are looking for but not finding, and
> add
> > it to the encyclopedia. Wonderful user-centred thinking, and it sounds
> > great! The problem is, sadly, the data doesn't help us achieve this at
> all.
> >
> > The sheer volume of requests means that a lot of the top zero-results
> > queries are junk. Trey Jones, an engineer on the Search Platform Team,
> > wrote a comprehensive analysis
> > <
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:TJones_(WMF)/Notes/Survey_of_Zero-Results_Queries
> > >
> > a
> > few years ago of the top zero-result queries based on an analysis of a
> > 500,000 multi-lingual sample. It was quite enlightening in some senses—we
> > found out a lot about the things that people are doing with the search
> > system, found some bugs in other products, and so on—but it didn't
> actually
> > help us understand what people were looking for and not finding.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 23:12, Leila Zia <le...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Gerard,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gerard Meijssen
> > > <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > but really
> > > > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people
> are
> > > > actually looking for and do not find..
> > >
> > > Please open a Phabricator task for this request at
> > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . Please add Research as a tag and
> > > add me as one of the subscribers. I'd like to work with you on a
> > > concrete proposal. A few items to consider as you're expanding the
> > > description of the task:
> > >
> > > * We won't be able to release raw search queries as they come to
> > > Wikimedia servers. That is for privacy reasons.
> > >
> > > * You also likely don't need raw search queries. If you can be
> > > specific about what you want to have access to, as much as possible,
> > > that can help us get started with scoping the problem. I'm looking for
> > > something along these lines: "I want to be able to see a monthly list
> > > of top n search terms in language x that result in 0 search results or
> > > results where the user does not click on any of the search results
> > > offered." The more specific, the better. If you are in doubt, put some
> > > description and we can iterate on it.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Leila
> > > p.s. The goal of this exercise is to have an open question ready (with
> > > all the details one needs to know) for the next time we will have a
> > > volunteer researcher to work with us.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 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, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Wikimedia-logo black.svg] *Ed Erhart* (he/him)
>
> Senior Editorial Associate
>
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to